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
Jun 30, 1937

Cocke & Braden v. Ayer

The case concerns Ewell J. Ayer, who suffered personal injuries after being struck by a truck driven by Ed Foran. Ayer secured a judgment for $19,000 against Foran and his employers, Cocke & Braden. The Court of Civil Appeals, Seventh District, certified questions to the Commission of Appeals, Section A, primarily asking whether Foran was an independent contractor. The opinion details the contractual agreement and testimony regarding Cocke & Braden's control over Foran's work. After reviewing the facts and applicable precedents, the Commission of Appeals affirmed that Foran was, as a matter of law, an independent contractor. This decision rendered a second certified question immaterial.

Independent ContractorVicarious LiabilityTort LawCertified QuestionsTexas LawMaster-Servant RelationshipControl TestEmployment LawTrucking AccidentPersonal Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische GmbH

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed two certified questions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning product liability actions. The central issue was whether defendants could present evidence of the plaintiff's employer's actions (alteration, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of the product) as contributing to the plaintiff's injuries, despite the employer's tort immunity under workers' compensation law. The Court affirmed that such evidence is admissible to establish cause-in-fact. However, the jury may not assess fault against the employer, ensuring the employer's immunity is maintained while allowing defendants to present a complete defense. The Court declined to reconsider its prior ruling in Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. and deemed the second certified question unnecessary to address.

Products LiabilityComparative FaultEmployer ImmunityWorkers' CompensationCause-in-FactProximate CauseStrict LiabilityNegligenceCertified QuestionsTennessee Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. United Parcel Service

The case addresses a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee concerning individual liability under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Plaintiff Kelly Carr alleged sexual harassment against her employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), and three UPS employees. The individual defendants moved for judgment, arguing they could not be held individually liable. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the THRA's 'agent of an employer' language does not impose individual liability, aligning with federal interpretations of Title VII. While the THRA provides for accomplice liability for individuals who aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer's discriminatory practice, the Court found no evidence under the certified facts to hold the non-supervisory and supervisory defendants individually liable for either co-worker harassment or supervisor-created hostile work environment, as their actions did not constitute aiding and abetting the employer's failure to take remedial action.

Sexual HarassmentTennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Individual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTitle VIICertified Question of LawRespondeat SuperiorAiding and AbettingHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fairfield Insurance Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP

The Texas Supreme Court addressed a certified question from the Fifth Circuit regarding whether Texas public policy prohibits liability insurance providers from indemnifying punitive damages imposed due to gross negligence. The Court concluded that Texas public policy does not prohibit such coverage under the specific workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance policy in question. This decision was based on the Legislature's authorization of such policies and the state's strong policy favoring freedom of contract. While acknowledging the punitive and deterrent purposes of exemplary damages, the Court found that in this particular workers' compensation context, the legislative and regulatory framework permits this type of insurance coverage. The ruling avoids broadly declaring public policy on the insurability of exemplary damages, limiting its scope to the certified question.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceEmployer LiabilityPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesGross NegligencePublic PolicyCertified QuestionInsurance CoverageFreedom of ContractStatutory Interpretation
References
127
Case No. M1998-00938-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2001

Rhonda Lowrimore v. Certified Industries, Inc.

This appeal concerns an award of front pay damages in a retaliatory discharge case. Rhonda Lowrimore, an employee, filed suit against Certified Industries, Inc., alleging she was discharged in retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims. A jury awarded back pay and punitive damages, and the trial court subsequently awarded front pay in lieu of reinstatement. On appeal, the employer challenged the entitlement and amount of the front pay award. The Court of Appeals affirmed the employee's entitlement to front pay but reduced the award due to a computational error, modifying it from $36,327 to $25,429.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationFront Pay DamagesBack PayPunitive DamagesEmployment LawMitigation of DamagesWage DifferentialAppellate ReviewJudicial Error
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Purkey v. American Home Assurance Co.

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed three certified questions from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning the validity of household or family exclusion clauses in automobile insurance liability policies under Tennessee law and public policy. Petitioner Janice W. Purkey argued that these exclusions were void following amendments to the Tennessee Financial Responsibility Act and the abolition of intrafamily tort immunity. However, the Court referenced its prior consistent rulings upholding such clauses and emphasized Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-7-121, which explicitly permits contractual exclusions 'notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary.' The Court concluded that such exclusions do not violate Tennessee law or public policy, thereby answering the first certified question in the negative and declining to address the remaining questions.

Automobile InsuranceLiability CoverageHousehold Exclusion ClauseFamily Exclusion ClauseTennessee LawPublic PolicyFinancial Responsibility ActContract InterpretationIntrafamily Tort ImmunityCertified Questions
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2000

Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a certified question regarding the necessity of state legislative approval for the City of New York to construct a water treatment plant on parkland. The City had selected the Mosholu Golf Course in Van Cortlandt Park for the plant, a project mandated by a consent decree. Plaintiffs, including the State of New York and citizen groups, argued that using dedicated parkland for a non-park purpose required legislative consent under the public trust doctrine. The court sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that a substantial intrusion on parkland for non-park uses, even if ownership isn't transferred and restoration is planned, mandates direct and specific approval from the State Legislature, thereby answering the certified question in the affirmative.

Public Trust DoctrineParkland AlienationWater Treatment PlantEnvironmental LawVan Cortlandt ParkMosholu Golf CourseLegislative ApprovalConsent DecreeNew York CityState Law
References
27
Case No. 2 NY3d 787
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Underwriters Insurance v. City Club Hotel, LLC

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two certified questions from the Second Circuit regarding an insured's right to recover attorneys' fees. U.S. Underwriters Insurance Company had sought a declaratory judgment against its insureds, City Club Hotel, LLC and Shelby Realty, LLC, to deny coverage for a personal injury claim. The insurer's disclaimer of coverage was found untimely. The Court held that an insured who prevails in an insurer-initiated declaratory judgment action to deny coverage may recover attorneys' fees, irrespective of whether the insurer initially provided a defense in the underlying suit. This decision underscores that the insurer's duty to defend extends to litigation arising from its attempts to avoid policy obligations. The Court answered the first certified question in the affirmative for Shelby.

Declaratory Judgment ActionAttorneys' FeesInsurer Duty to DefendInsurance CoverageUntimely DisclaimerPrevailing PartyCertified QuestionSecond CircuitNew York Court of AppealsPolicy Obligations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haley v. University of Tennessee-Knoxville

Usha Haley, an Associate Professor at the University of Tennessee, was denied tenure and subsequently filed several lawsuits, including a breach of contract claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission, which she later withdrew. The University argued that filing with the Claims Commission activated a waiver provision, barring her other related federal and state causes of action. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee certified a question to the Tennessee Supreme Court regarding this waiver. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a voluntary non-suit of a claim filed with the Claims Commission still activates the waiver provision of Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(b). The Court also affirmed that Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 23, which authorizes the certified question procedure, is a constitutional exercise of its inherent power.

Certified questionWaiver provisionTennessee Claims Commission ActSovereign immunityJudicial powerState lawFederal courtsStatutory interpretationVoluntary dismissalSupreme Court Rule 23
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Plaintiff sustained severe hand injuries while moving an 800-pound wire reel down stairs using an improvised pulley system on defendant's premises. The District Court granted judgment for the plaintiff, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable due to a gravity-related risk. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the statute's applicability to elevation-related injuries and direct causation by gravity, particularly when neither the worker nor an object directly falls. The Court of Appeals determined that the key inquiry is whether the injury resulted from inadequate protection against a risk arising from a significant elevation differential. It concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct consequence of the force of gravity on the inadequately secured reel, making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The first certified question was answered affirmatively, and the second was deemed unnecessary.

Labor LawScaffolding LawElevation DifferentialGravity RiskConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryMakeshift DeviceCertified QuestionsNew York Court of AppealsStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,083 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