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. 14-02-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Limited, and Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Limited, D/B/A Village Builders v. Great American Insurance Company, American Dynasty Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Markel American Insurance Company Gerling America Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Westchester Fire Ins Company

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute between homebuilder Lennar Corporation and its CGL insurance carriers over damages caused by defective stucco (EIFS) applied to homes. The court analyzed whether negligently defective construction constitutes an "occurrence" and distinguished between covered costs (repairing actual water damage) and non-covered costs (preventative EIFS replacement, overhead). While affirming summary judgment for several insurers due to unmet self-insured retentions based on individual homes as separate occurrences, the court reversed for American Dynasty and Markel, citing unresolved factual issues regarding "known loss" and policy conditions. Lennar's extra-contractual claims against American Dynasty were ultimately denied for lack of proven damages or statutory violations.

Insurance Policy InterpretationConstruction DefectsCommercial Liability InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimsStucco DefectsDuty to IndemnifySelf-Insured RetentionsKnown Loss PrincipleSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Law
References
96
Case No. 09-22-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Lexington Insurance Company v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation

This case from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal by Lexington Insurance Company against Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation. Lexington challenged a summary judgment that awarded Exxon $25 million under an umbrella insurance policy. The dispute centered on whether Exxon qualified as an additional insured under a policy issued to Brock Services, LTD, and if specific policy exclusions for workers' compensation and employer's liability applied. The court affirmed the arbitration finding that Exxon was an additional insured but ultimately reversed the trial court's judgment. It ruled that the employer's liability exclusion applied, given Exxon's status as a statutory employer of Brock's injured employees through its Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP), thus entitling Exxon to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Consequently, Lexington was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Exxon, and the awards for damages, attorney's fees, and interest were reversed.

Insurance Policy CoverageUmbrella InsuranceWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer's Liability ExclusionExclusive RemedyOCIPStatutory EmployerAdditional Insured StatusArbitration ReviewSummary Judgment Reversal
References
33
Case No. 01-18-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Shakeel Uddin v. Jacqueline K. Cunningham Deputy Receiver of Southern Title Insurance Corporation and Southern Title Insurance Corporation

Appellant Shakeel Uddin appealed a summary judgment granted to Southern Title Insurance Corporation (STIC). Uddin had guaranteed a loan to Nabeel & Amaan Investments, Inc. (NAI), which defaulted, leading to a claim by the lender, Sterling Bank, under a title insurance policy issued by STIC. After paying Sterling and being assigned the loan rights, STIC sued Uddin directly on the guaranty. Uddin argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that he had raised material issues of fact on his affirmative defenses. The First District Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the statute of limitations was not jurisdictional, STIC's capacity issue was cured by the relation-back doctrine, STIC established its claim, and Uddin had contractually waived his other affirmative defenses.

Guaranty AgreementLoan DefaultTitle InsuranceSubrogationStatute of LimitationsStandingCapacityRelation-Back DoctrineContractual WaiverAffirmative Defenses
References
19
Case No. 03-08-00766-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2010

Service Lloyds Insurance Company v. American Alternative Insurance Corporation

This workers' compensation case involves an appeal by Service Lloyds Insurance Company against American Alternative Insurance Corporation (AAIC). The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, ordered Service Lloyds to reimburse AAIC for benefits erroneously paid to an injured employee, Emmit Hines, for whom Service Lloyds was the liable carrier. Service Lloyds argued that a workers' compensation carrier cannot be a 'subclaimant' under Texas Labor Code section 409.009 and that the Division lacked jurisdiction over such a claim. The district court affirmed the Division's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that a workers' compensation carrier can indeed be a subclaimant and the Division has jurisdiction to resolve such independently-raised subclaims.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawSubrogationStatutory InterpretationTexas CourtsAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawReimbursementInsurance DisputeJurisdiction
References
20
Case No. 01-19-00852-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2021

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

This case involves two related appeals concerning insurance coverage for bodily injury claims against Exxon Mobil Corporation by its contractor's employees, Kevin Roberts and Arturo Munoz. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. challenged a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Exxon and Starr Indemnity and Liability Insurance Company, arguing its umbrella policy did not provide coverage beyond its CGL policy, as dictated by the Exxon-Savage Contract. Exxon also challenged a summary judgment favoring Starr. The appeals court reversed the judgment against National Union, finding that 'Commercial General Liability insurance' in the contract referred only to primary coverage, not umbrella or excess policies. Consequently, Exxon was not entitled to coverage under National Union's umbrella policy. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Starr, as its bumbershoot policy was also considered an umbrella policy. The case was remanded for reconsideration of attorney's fees and costs.

Insurance Policy InterpretationCommercial General LiabilityUmbrella Liability InsuranceExcess Liability InsuranceAdditional Insured EndorsementSummary Judgment ReviewBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury Claims
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pepco Construction of New York, Inc. v. CNA Insurance

This case concerns an action for declaratory judgment initiated by Pepco Construction of New York, Inc. against CNA Insurance Company. Pepco sought a declaration that CNA was obligated to defend and indemnify it in an underlying personal injury action, arguing that a subcontract with Savmor Mechanical, insured by CNA, incorporated a provision from the prime contract requiring additional insured coverage. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to Pepco. However, the appellate court modified this decision, ruling that the subcontract's language regarding the incorporation of the insurance procurement provision was ambiguous. This ambiguity creates a question of fact that precludes summary judgment, necessitating a trial to determine if Pepco qualified as an additional insured under CNA's policies. Consequently, Pepco's cross-motion for summary judgment on CNA's obligation to defend and indemnify was denied.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredSubcontract AgreementContractual AmbiguitySummary JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyConstruction LawAppellate ReviewDeclaratory Judgment
References
5
Case No. 03-04-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2006

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Texas Department of Insurance and Jose Montemayor, as Commissioner of Insurance Amber, Inc., Champagne-Webber, Inc. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. And Royal Seating Corp.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and its affiliates appealed a district court judgment requiring them to issue rebates to workers' compensation policyholders for 1991 and 1992 surpluses. The appellants argued that a rule from the Texas Department of Insurance, which mandated these pass-throughs, unconstitutionally impaired their contractual rights, deprived them of property without due process, and constituted an impermissible retroactive law. The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the Department's rule was a valid exercise of legislative power, served a legitimate public purpose by preventing insurers from retaining unforeseen windfalls, and did not violate constitutional prohibitions regarding retroactive legislation, contract impairment, or due process rights.

Insurance LawWorkers' Compensation InsuranceRetrospective Rating PlanInsurance RegulationConstitutional ChallengesContractual ObligationsDue ProcessRetroactive LegislationAppellate Court DecisionTexas Department of Insurance
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hunt, Hopkins & Mitchell, Inc. D/B/A Hunt & Associates, Inc. v. Facility Insurance Corporation and Texas Department of Insurance

Hunt, an insurance agent for workers' compensation policies, appealed two summary judgments granted in favor of Facility Insurance Corporation and the Texas Department of Insurance. Hunt sought additional commissions on premiums recovered by the Facility through a settlement with Mobley Industrial Painters, Inc. The core dispute was whether TDI's Rules and Regulations entitled Hunt to commissions on funds obtained via collection actions. The district court found against Hunt, a decision upheld by the appellate court, which affirmed that Section XI of the Rules and Regulations does not mandate such commission payments. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Hunt's request for a continuance.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CommissionsSummary Judgment AppealBreach of Contract ClaimDeclaratory JudgmentRegulatory InterpretationAccord and Satisfaction DefenseAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Agent Liability
References
10
Case No. 03-01-00609-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2002

Hunt, Hopkins & Mitchell, Inc. D/B/A Hunt & Associates, Inc. v. Facility Insurance Corporation and Texas Department of Insurance

Hunt, an insurance agent, appealed two summary judgments granted in favor of Facility Insurance Corporation and the Texas Department of Insurance. Hunt sought additional commissions on workers' compensation premiums collected by Facility through a settlement with Mobley Industrial Painters, Inc. The district court denied Hunt's claim, stating that the Rules and Regulations only allowed commissions after a final audit and full payment of premiums, and that Hunt's argument of accord and satisfaction was not applicable. The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Hunt was not entitled to commissions on funds obtained through the settlement agreement. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Hunt's request for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing.

Summary judgmentInsurance commissionsWorkers' compensationBreach of contractAccord and satisfactionThird-party beneficiaryRules and RegulationsProcedural HandbookAppellate reviewMotion for continuance
References
14
Case No. No. 21-0936
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2023

Exxonmobil Corporation v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa, and Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether an insurance policy incorporates payout limits from an underlying service agreement. The Court held that it does not, emphasizing that the doctrine of incorporation by reference requires a clear manifestation of intent. It clarified that an umbrella policy's 'broader coverage' clause refers to the types of risks covered, not the financial limits, and that umbrella policies serve to provide higher limits for risks already covered by exhausted primary policies. The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, finding that ExxonMobil Corporation is an 'insured' under the umbrella policies and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Insurance LawContract InterpretationIncorporation by ReferenceUmbrella PolicyPrimary PolicyAdditional InsuredPayout LimitsService AgreementTexas Supreme CourtCommercial General Liability
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 18,404 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