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. M2011-02495-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2012

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Gary Rose, Individually and d/b/a American Masonry and Capital Builders, LLC

Erie Insurance Exchange appealed the Davidson County Chancery Court's dismissal of its declaratory judgment action. Erie sought a declaration that its insurance policy issued to Gary Rose excluded coverage for claims brought by Capital Builders, LLC in a separate Williamson County action and that Erie had no duty to defend Rose. The Davidson County action was dismissed based on the 'prior suit pending' doctrine because the Williamson County action involved the same parties and identical subject matter concerning Erie's obligations under the insurance policy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that Erie's declaratory judgment claim should be litigated within the existing Williamson County action, and found no improper prejudice regarding the introduction of insurance evidence.

Declaratory JudgmentPrior Suit Pending DoctrineInsurance Policy CoverageDuty to DefendBreach of ContractChancery CourtAppellate ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. ADJ7170139, ADJ7176930
Regular
Mar 22, 2017

ROBERT GAONA vs. CAPITAL BUILDERS HARDWARE, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA

This case involves Robert Gaona's workers' compensation claims against Capital Builders Hardware and their insurers. The Court of Appeal previously annulled its writ of review and remanded the case to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB has now affirmed its prior decision from March 24, 2016, which dismissed the defendants' Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. Therefore, the original Joint Findings and Orders issued by the WCJ on June 5, 2015, stand affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturCourt of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint Findings and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeAnnulledAffirmedSubstitution of Commissioner
References
1
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. 2024 NYSlipOp 01609 [225 AD3d 520]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Linares v. Massachussetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.

Plaintiff Jose Linares, an employee of Tolmac Contracting Inc., sustained injuries after falling from stacked compound buckets while performing work in a building owned by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MMLI) and Capital Builders Group, Inc. (Capital). Linares moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, asserting that MMLI/Capital failed to provide adequate safety devices. MMLI/Capital and Tolmac sought summary judgment to dismiss various Labor Law and common law negligence claims. The Supreme Court granted Linares's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendants' motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6), and common law negligence claims, while affirming the decision regarding Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyFall AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityLack of Safety DevicesForeman Negligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2010

Gunther v. Capital One, N.A.

Plaintiff Eric Gunther filed a class action against Capital One Bank and Capital One Financial Corporation, alleging improper banking fees. Gunther, a former North Fork Bank customer, became a Capital One Bank account holder after a merger. He claimed Capital One Bank increased fees, including ATM withdrawal and overdraft fees, without proper notice, charged 'Undeliverable Mail Fees,' deceptively marketed 'free checking,' and failed to provide fee schedule notifications. The Court dismissed most of Gunther's breach of contract claims, except for the 'Undeliverable Mail Fees' claim. Claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment were also dismissed. A New York General Business Law § 349 claim was dismissed with leave to replead. The Court denied dismissal for the declaratory judgment claim against Capital One Bank. All claims against Capital One Financial were dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish direct or indirect liability through corporate veil piercing.

Consumer Class ActionBanking FeesBreach of ContractMotion to DismissCorporate Veil PiercingTruth in Savings Act (TISA)Unjust EnrichmentDeclaratory JudgmentStanding to SueNew York General Business Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Charter Builders v. Durham

Charter Builders, a general contractor, appealed a judgment denying its claims for indemnity or contribution from Commercial Drywall, a third-party defendant. Durham, an employee, had originally sued Charter Builders for personal injuries sustained at a construction site. The jury found negligence and gross negligence against Charter Builders, apportioning 55% of the negligence. The appellate court affirmed the denial of contribution, citing Charter Builders' failure to support its claim, its proportionate payment of damages, the basis of exemplary damages on gross negligence, and Commercial Drywall's immunity as a subscribing employer under the Workers' Compensation Act. The court also denied indemnification, ruling that the contractual provisions did not unequivocally indemnify Charter Builders against its own negligence, as required by Texas law, and no exceptions applied to this rule.

Workers' CompensationContributionIndemnity AgreementJoint TortfeasorsEmployer ImmunityGross NegligenceAppellate ProcedureContract InterpretationPremises LiabilityEmployee Definition
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1997

Reeves Bros., Inc. v. Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp.

Reeves Brothers, Inc. (Reeves) sought confirmation of an arbitration award against Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp. (Capital). Capital cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging inadequate disclosure of relationships between two arbitrators, Norman Hackel and Lawrence H. Bober, and Reeves. The underlying dispute involved unpaid invoices for chemically-treated fabric sold by Reeves to Capital. The arbitration, conducted under the General Arbitration Council of the Textile and Apparel Industries (GAC), resulted in a unanimous award in favor of Reeves. Capital challenged the arbitrators' qualifications during the process, but the GAC denied the applications for disqualification. The court, applying Federal Arbitration Law and the 'evident partiality' standard, found that Capital failed to demonstrate sufficient partiality or prejudice to vacate the award. Therefore, the court granted Reeves' motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied Capital's cross-motion to vacate it.

ArbitrationArbitrator DisclosureEvident PartialityVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCommercial DisputeTextile IndustryUCC 2-207Federal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01560 [159 AD3d 480]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Gomes v. Pearson Capital Partners LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting plaintiff Atley Gomes partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for a December 24, 2012 accident. The court found that the scaffold lacked required safety features (railings, toe boards, cross-bracing, and tie-off points), establishing a statutory violation and proximate cause for plaintiff's fall. The court also affirmed the denial of defendants Pearson Capital Partners LLC and Congress Builders LLC's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, specifically with respect to Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-5.1 (j), citing unresolved issues of fact regarding the scaffold's height. Additionally, the court declined to consider the defendants' hearsay exception arguments as they were raised for the first time on appeal.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentProximate CauseAppellate ReviewHearsay ExceptionIndustrial CodeConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryWorker Safety
References
8
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00957 [136 AD3d 783]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2016

Sanchez v. Metro Builders Corp.

Juan P. Sanchez initiated a personal injury lawsuit after falling three stories from a roof during snow removal, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against general contractor Metro Builders Corp. and subcontractor JMZ Builders, Inc. Metro, in turn, sought indemnification from JMZ and Sanchez's employers, Cocos Brothers. The Appellate Division ultimately granted Sanchez's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against Metro, finding Metro to be a statutory agent of the owner. Concurrently, Metro's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was granted, while its claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) were denied on the merits. Metro's indemnification claims against JMZ and Cocos Brothers were dismissed as untimely.

Workplace FallConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsSummary Judgment GrantedGeneral ContractorStatutory AgentIndemnification ClaimsAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySafety Devices
References
20
Case No. 02-14-00304-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2015

Barry Nussbaum v. Builders Bank, an Illinois Banking Corporation

This appeal arises from competing summary-judgment motions in a bill-of-review proceeding, focusing on whether a defendant's failure to update a contractually-agreed-to address for service of process constitutes fault or negligence precluding bill-of-review relief. Appellant Barry Nussbaum had guaranteed a loan from Appellee Builders Bank. When the borrower defaulted, Builders Bank sued Nussbaum for breach of the guaranty, obtaining a default judgment when Nussbaum failed to answer. Nussbaum filed a bill-of-review challenging the default judgment, claiming improper service. Builders Bank filed a cross-motion, arguing Nussbaum's own fault contributed to the default. The trial court denied Nussbaum's motion, granted Builders Bank's, and dismissed the bill-of-review. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Nussbaum's failure to update his address, as required by the guaranty, constituted fault or negligence, thereby precluding him from obtaining bill-of-review relief.

Bill of ReviewDefault JudgmentService of ProcessContractual WaiverDue ProcessSummary Judgment ReviewGuaranty AgreementFault and NegligenceAppellate CourtTexas Law
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 538 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