CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2005

Plaza Restoration, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The plaintiff insured brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment, alleging that the defendant insurer breached its covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This alleged breach related to a personal injury action previously commenced against the plaintiff by a construction worker. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which had denied its motion to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment, arguing the action was premature. The appellate court rejected the defendant's contention, affirming that a declaratory judgment action against an insurer is permissible even before a judgment in the underlying action. The order of the Supreme Court was affirmed, with costs.

Declaratory JudgmentBreach of CovenantGood Faith and Fair DealingInsurance LawPersonal InjuryConstruction Site InjuryRipeness DoctrineMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Hale

Linda Hale sued E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing after E-Z Mart stopped paying her workers' compensation benefits following a workplace injury. E-Z Mart, a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, had implemented a self-insurance program, assuring employees that claims would be handled like traditional workers' compensation. The jury found E-Z Mart breached its contract and duty of good faith, and the trial court awarded Hale significant damages. On appeal, E-Z Mart argued no contract existed and that the duty of good faith did not apply to a self-insured entity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, deeming the existence of an implied contract and holding that E-Z Mart, by assuming the role of an insurer, was subject to the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court also rejected E-Z Mart's statute of limitations defense.

Workers' CompensationSelf-InsuranceBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingImplied ContractTexas LawStatute of LimitationsEmployer LiabilityEmployee BenefitsAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Dominguez

This workers' compensation case addresses an allegation by Justo L. Dominguez, Jr. that National Union Fire Insurance Company, his compensation carrier, breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Dominguez initially settled a workers' compensation claim with National Union for $28,000, then filed a separate suit for breach of good faith. A jury awarded Dominguez $322,988.36, which the court of appeals partially affirmed and partially reversed. Citing Lyons v. Millers Casualty Insurance Company, the Texas Supreme Court held there was no evidence that National Union breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, reversing the court of appeals' judgment and rendering judgment that Dominguez take nothing.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceGood Faith and Fair DealingBreach of DutyInsurance ClaimsAppellate ReviewNo Evidence StandardReversal of JudgmentCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesMental Anguish
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bates v. Jackson National Life Insurance

This case involves Jerry Bates and Brian Bates, beneficiaries of a life insurance policy, suing Jackson National Life Insurance Company to recover policy proceeds after their father, Mr. Bates, died. Jackson National denied the claim, alleging material misrepresentations by Mr. Bates regarding his health (specifically diabetes and phlebothrombosis) in the insurance application. The court considered Jackson National's motion for summary judgment on claims of breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of Article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code. The court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding Mr. Bates' intent to deceive. However, the court granted summary judgment for Jackson National on the claims of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and violation of Article 21.21, ruling that this duty does not extend to third-party beneficiaries like the plaintiffs under Texas law, and even if it did, Jackson National had a reasonable basis for denying the claim due to the admitted misrepresentations.

Life InsuranceMaterial MisrepresentationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractBad Faith ClaimDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance Code Article 21.21Third-Party BeneficiaryInsurance Policy ProceedsMedical History Disclosure
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2000

Coffman v. Provost ★ Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P.

A former employee, referred to as Plaintiff, sued Provost ★ Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P. for breach of contract, repudiation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of Title VII, TCHRA, and the Equal Pay Act. Defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the action. The court granted the motion in part, compelling arbitration for claims arising under the partnership agreements effective after January 1, 1997, breach of fiduciary duty, repudiation, and breach of good faith and fair dealing. However, claims for breach of the 1994 and 1996 partnership agreements and statutory discrimination claims were not compelled to arbitration but were stayed pending the arbitration of other claims.

ArbitrationEmployment LawBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyStatutory DiscriminationFederal Arbitration ActTexas Contract LawPartnership AgreementMotion to Compel ArbitrationPiecemeal Litigation
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hopkins v. Highlands Insurance Co.

Charles Milton Hopkins (Appellant) was fired by Magnolia Coca-Cola Bottling Company after Highlands Insurance Co. and Goodman-Watson Insurance Agency, Inc. (Appellees) excluded him from an insurance policy due to his driving record. Hopkins sued, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellees. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment regarding the Deceptive Trade Practices Act for both Appellees and the breach of duty claim against Watson Agency. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment against Highlands Insurance Co. for tortious interference and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, finding issues of material fact regarding Highlands' justification for exclusion based on its own guidelines and DOT regulations.

Deceptive Trade PracticesTortious InterferenceContractual RelationshipBreach of Good FaithFair DealingSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageDriving RecordExclusion from PolicyAffirmative Defense
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mroz v. United States Fire Insurance Co.

The appellant, Leonard Mroz, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of an insurance company. Mroz had previously settled a workers' compensation claim and later filed a suit alleging the insurance company breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to make timely payments. The trial court's summary judgment was based on collateral estoppel, judicial admissions, and judicial estoppel, citing the settlement of the workers' compensation case. The appellate court, however, held that these doctrines do not bar Mroz's bad faith claim because, at the time of the workers' compensation settlement (February 22, 1987), Texas law had not yet recognized a cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in workers' compensation claims, a right established by the Aranda case in 1988. Following the precedent set by Marino v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case.

Workers' CompensationBad Faith ClaimDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelJudicial AdmissionsJudicial EstoppelRes JudicataTexas LawInsurance Company Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watson v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Kathleen G. Watson appealed a summary judgment ruling against her in a suit against Allstate Insurance Company. Watson, a third-party claimant in a motor vehicle collision with an Allstate insured, alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, sought a declaratory judgment, and brought claims under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and Article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code. The appellate court reversed and remanded the claim under Article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code, holding that a third-party beneficiary of an automobile liability policy may bring an action under this article for unfair claim settlement practices without first obtaining a judgment against the insured, and that such practices constitute the "business of insurance" under federal law. However, the court affirmed the remainder of the judgment, ruling that a third-party beneficiary does not have a special relationship with the insurer to support a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Furthermore, Watson was not considered a "consumer" under the DTPA because she sought insurance proceeds rather than goods or services, and she was not entitled to a declaratory judgment as it would not resolve the underlying controversy.

Automobile Liability InsuranceThird-Party BeneficiaryDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingUnfair Claim Settlement PracticesTexas Insurance CodeDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Consumer StatusSummary JudgmentMcCarran-Ferguson ActAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

England v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Plaintiff Karen England sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for bad faith delay or denial of workers' compensation benefits, alleging violations of the Texas Insurance Code, the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff sustained a back injury in February 2008 and filed a workers' compensation claim. The Defendant initially denied benefits but later accepted a 'Lumbar Sprain/Strain' claim, eventually agreeing in a Benefit Dispute Agreement to include a herniated disc. The court granted summary judgment for the Defendant on the Insurance Code and DTPA claims, citing the Texas Supreme Court's ruling in Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger which precludes such claims for workers' compensation claimants. However, the court denied summary judgment on Plaintiff's common law claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the adequacy of Defendant's investigation and whether Plaintiff suffered independent injuries such as damage to credit reputation and mental anguish.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationBad Faith Insurance ClaimTexas Insurance CodeDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Duty of Good Faith and Fair DealingAdministrative RemediesIndependent InjuryMedical RecordsHerniated Disc
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 7,537 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational