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

Marino v. Perna

Claimant Marino sued defendant Perna for breach of warranty of title after purchasing a stolen automobile, which led to his son's arrest and the car's seizure. Perna had bought the car from third-party defendant Marshal Locascio at a traffic auction. The court found that Locascio, as a Marshal, was exempt from implied warranty of title under UCC 2-312, and the action against him was also barred by a one-year Statute of Limitations. However, the court ruled in favor of Marino against Perna for breach of warranty of title, awarding $1,200 for the car's value, but denying consequential damages for legal fees due to lack of foreseeability on Perna's part.

breach of warrantywarranty of titlestolen vehicleUniform Commercial CodeStatute of LimitationsMarshal salepublic auctionconsequential damagesautomobile saleimplied warranty
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anjay Corp. v. Those Certain Underwriters

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance claim denied by defendant insurers to plaintiff jewelry manufacturers. The plaintiffs experienced a significant loss due to an explosion and fire at their facility in Mexico. The defendants denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiffs had breached a "Video Tape Warranty" in their jewelers’ block insurance policy by failing to preserve relevant videotapes. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that a breach of warranty does not negate recovery under an insurance contract unless it materially increases the risk of loss, which is typically a factual question for a jury. The court found the defendants' arguments regarding the materiality of the breach unconvincing and subsequently reinstated the plaintiffs' complaint.

Insurance LawBreach of WarrantySummary JudgmentVideo Tape WarrantyMateriality of BreachRisk of LossJewelers' Block PolicyAppellate ReviewReversalComplaint Reinstatement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas D/B/A Bonded Builders Warranty Group, Daniel Avila, Grisele Edith Arizpe, and AA Builders, LLC v. Patricia Rockoff

Patricia Rockoff purchased a home from AA Builders, LLC, which included a warranty from Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas (BBWG). After discovering structural defects, Rockoff filed claims against both AA Builders and BBWG, subsequently initiating a lawsuit. Both AA Builders and BBWG moved to compel arbitration based on the warranty's terms, but the trial court denied these motions. On interlocutory appeal, the appellate court reversed, affirming the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. The court rejected arguments regarding the unconscionability of arbitrator selection and limitations on remedies, but remanded the case for the trial court to determine if the arbitration costs render the agreement substantively unconscionable after an arbitrator is appointed.

Interlocutory AppealArbitrationUnconscionabilityHome WarrantyConstruction DefectsFederal Arbitration ActTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActContract LawProcedural UnconscionabilitySubstantive Unconscionability
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Rehab Plus Inc.

Keith Henry sued Rehab Plus, Inc., for injuries sustained while wearing a back support belt manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment for Rehab Plus on the breach of express warranty and unfair and deceptive trade practices claims, finding a lack of evidence for an express warranty and no misleading conduct. However, the court denied summary judgment on the negligence, strict products liability, and breach of implied warranty claims. It determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendant's duty to warn foreseeable users about latent dangers associated with the back support belt and whether the product was fit for its ordinary purpose, thereby precluding summary dismissal of those claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantySummary JudgmentFailure to WarnProduct DefectBack Support BeltIndustrial SafetyDuty to Warn
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Healey

Karin M. Roberts and Marjorie Roberts sued attorney James Sean Healey and his firm for negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations. The suit stemmed from Healey's failure to secure a protective order for Karin against her estranged husband, Daniel Charles Kennedy, who subsequently killed their two children and wounded Marjorie Roberts. The trial court granted summary judgment for Healey on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment for Karin's negligence, gross negligence, and DTPA claims, and for Marjorie's negligence and gross negligence claims, holding that Healey's failure to obtain a protective order was too attenuated from Kennedy's criminal acts to establish legal causation. However, the court reversed and remanded Karin's breach of contract and breach of warranty claims, and Marjorie's DTPA, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and bystander damages claims, finding that Healey's motion for summary judgment did not adequately address these specific grounds.

Attorney MalpracticeLegal NegligenceCausationSummary Judgment AppealDeceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyAttorney-Client RelationshipBystander DamagesProtective Orders
References
21
Case No. 01-00-00812-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2003

U.S. Tire-Tech, Inc./Custom Blending International v. Boeran, B v.

Boeran, a Dutch corporation, sued U.S. Tire-Tech, Inc. and Custom Blending International, Inc. (Tire-Tech) for breach of warranty related to a tire-liner product. A jury initially awarded Boeran damages, but the trial court only held Tire-Tech liable under the DTPA for breach of express warranty, not implied warranty. On appeal, Tire-Tech argued lack of privity and Boeran's failure to provide timely notice of breach. The appellate court held that privity of contract is not required for express warranty claims but agreed that Boeran failed to provide timely notice to Tire-Tech, a condition precedent for both express and implied warranty claims. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment, rendering a "take nothing" judgment against Boeran.

Breach of Express WarrantyBreach of Implied WarrantyPrivity of ContractNotice RequirementDeceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)Economic LossRemote ManufacturerCondition PrecedentJury Findings
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

JCW Electronics, Inc. v. Garza

This appeal concerns a personal injury lawsuit filed against JCW Electronics, Inc. after an inmate's suicide in a Port Isabel City Jail cell using a JCW-installed telephone. Initially, the trial court rendered judgment based on breach of contract and fraud, overriding a jury verdict that also included findings of negligence and breach of implied warranty. The appellate court reversed the breach of contract and fraud judgments, citing pleading deficiencies and the Texas Proportionate Responsibility Statute, which barred fraud recovery due to the deceased's comparative responsibility. However, the court affirmed the judgment based on breach of implied warranty of fitness, finding sufficient evidence that the telephone was unsafe for unsupervised inmate use and proximately caused the death. The final decision modified the trial court's judgment by reversing attorney's fees and adjusting court costs, ultimately affirming recovery for the appellees under the breach of implied warranty claim.

Product LiabilityImplied WarrantyWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryJail SuicideTelephone Equipment SafetyAppellate ProcedureContract LawTort LawProportionate Responsibility
References
56
Case No. 01-08-00918-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2010

Rasa Floors, LP v. Spring Village Partners, Ltd.

An apartment complex owner (Spring Village Partners, Ltd.) hired a contractor (Rasa Floors, L.P.) to install new flooring. A dispute arose over billing and workmanship, leading Rasa Floors to sue on a sworn account and for breach of contract or quantum meruit, and Spring Village to countersue for breach of contract, warranty, and fraud. A jury found for Spring Village on breach of warranty ($5,000) and for Rasa Floors on quantum meruit ($30,000). The trial court disregarded the quantum meruit finding. The appellate court affirmed the breach of warranty finding, reversed the trial court's disregard of the quantum meruit award, and remanded the case for entry of a new judgment reflecting the offset and for reconsideration of attorney's fees.

Contract DisputeQuantum MeruitBreach of WarrantySworn AccountAttorney's FeesJury VerdictOffset DamagesConstruction LawPleading DefectsAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Staton Holdings, Inc. v. Tatum, L.L.C.

This case involves an appeal by Staton Holdings, Inc. against Tatum, L.L.C. after a trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment against Staton. Staton had sued Tatum, an executive search firm, following the resignation of a candidate placed by Tatum, alleging various claims including breach of contract and warranty, negligence, and fraud. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for negligence, gross negligence, and fraud, ruling they were barred by the economic-loss rule due to inadequate briefing by Staton. However, the court reversed and remanded the breach of warranty claims, extending the express-negligence test to prospective releases of future breaches of warranty in service transactions, finding the release in question did not specifically cover such claims. The court upheld the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, deeming the release unambiguous and broadly applicable to claims relating to the recruited candidate.

Summary JudgmentBreach of WarrantyBreach of ContractEconomic Loss RuleExpress Negligence RuleFair Notice DoctrineProspective ReleaseRisk ShiftingExecutive Search ServicesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

BONDED BUILDERS HOME WARRANTY ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS, INC. D/B/A Bonded Builders Warranty Group, Appellant v. James B. SMITH and Michelle Eyrich, Appellees

This interlocutory appeal concerns Bonded Builders Home-Warranty Association of Texas, Inc. (BBWG)'s challenge to the denial of its motion to compel arbitration against homeowners James B. Smith and Micjielle Eyrich. The homeowners sued BBWG and Regent Custom Homes for alleged defects in their purchased home, asserting breach of contract and seeking attorney's fees. The appellate court determined that a valid arbitration agreement existed between BBWG and the homeowners. While some of the homeowners' unconscionability arguments regarding arbitrator selection and costs were deemed speculative, the court found the arbitration provision's clause limiting statutory attorney's fees to be invalid. However, due to a severability clause, the court ordered this specific limitation removed, granted BBWG's motion to compel arbitration, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

ArbitrationInterlocutory AppealContract LawUnconscionabilityAttorney's FeesSeverabilityWarrantyHome DefectsTexas LawFederal Arbitration Act
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 2,644 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