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

Angus Chemical Co. v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc.

An explosion at a nitroparaffin plant owned by Angus Chemical Company and managed by IMC Fertilizer Group, Inc. in Louisiana led to multiple lawsuits. Angus and IMC eventually settled, with Angus releasing IMC from most claims arising from the explosion. Subsequently, Angus sued IMC's insurers in Louisiana. IMC then initiated a declaratory action in Texas, contending that the release granted to IMC by Angus also extended to IMC's insurers. The district court ruled in favor of Angus, but the court of appeals reversed this decision. The Texas Supreme Court granted Angus's application for writ of error, reversing the judgment of the court of appeals and remanding the case to the district court. The Supreme Court held that under Texas law, an insurer is not released from liability unless explicitly named in the release, regardless of whether the insured has been released.

direct actioninsurer liabilityrelease of claimstortfeasorthird-party claimsLouisiana lawTexas lawwrit of errorsummary judgmentconflict of laws
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamb v. Shell Chemical Company

This is a death action case where Edward N. Lamb died from an electrical shock while working at a chemical plant construction site. His survivors sued Shell Chemical Company, Shell Oil Company, and H. K. Ferguson Company. The jury found Shell not negligent for energizing the alarm circuit, but found Fisk Electric Company (Lamb's employer and subcontractor to Ferguson) negligent for connecting the wire. The appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment for Shell and H.K. Ferguson, finding that the jury's verdict was not affirmatively wrong regarding Shell's negligence, but that the trial court erred in instructing a verdict for H.K. Ferguson. The court also found error in allowing Fisk Electric Company six peremptory challenges without showing antagonism to Ferguson. The case highlights issues of contractor duty, concealed dangers, and jury challenges.

Death ActionElectrical AccidentPremises LiabilityGeneral Contractor DutySubcontractor NegligencePeremptory ChallengesDirected VerdictContractual IndemnityWorkers' CompensationConstruction Safety
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Short v. Durez Division-Hooker Chemicals & Plastic Corp.

Terry Short, an employee of Davis Refrigeration Company, sustained injuries while climbing a ladder at a plant owned by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC). He and his wife initiated an action against OCC, asserting a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was precluded by Workers’ Compensation Law and that Short was engaged in routine maintenance. Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Workers’ Compensation Law, citing factual disputes regarding special employment status. However, the court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, as there was an issue of fact concerning whether Short's activity constituted routine maintenance or protected repair work. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order, denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and reinstating it, while also denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Law 240(1)Workers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment MotionSpecial Employment DoctrineRoutine Maintenance ExceptionConstruction WorkLadder AccidentFactual DisputeAppellate ReviewOrder Modification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davison Specialty Chemical Co. v. S & H Erectors, Inc.

This action, presided over by District Judge Edgar, involves Davison Specialty Chemical Co. seeking indemnification from S & H Erectors, Inc. for damages resulting from a 1984 explosion during construction work in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Davison's claim stems from an indemnity clause in their construction contract. S & H moved for partial summary judgment, contending the clause was unenforceable under Maryland law and violated Tennessee public policy regarding workers' compensation immunity. The Court denied S & H's motion, ruling that under Maryland law and a comparative negligence interpretation of the contract, S & H could be liable for damages caused by its own negligence. Furthermore, the Court found that a recent 1985 amendment to the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act explicitly permits third-party indemnity actions based on express contracts, thereby overcoming S & H's immunity argument.

Indemnity ClauseConstruction ContractPartial Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationChoice of LawMaryland LawTennessee Public PolicyWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionComparative Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

IMC Fertilizer, Inc. v. Angus Chemical Co.

This case involves IMC Fertilizer, Inc. and IMC Fertilizer Group, Inc. (IMC) appealing a partial summary judgment granted in favor of Angus Chemical Company (Angus). The central legal question addressed is the effectiveness of a liability release that names an insured party (IMC) but not its insurance carrier under Texas law. Following a plant explosion and subsequent settlement agreement where Angus released IMC from most claims, Angus later sued IMC's insurers in Louisiana. IMC sought a declaratory judgment in Texas asserting its insurers were also released by virtue of IMC's release, despite not being specifically named. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that under Texas law, when an insured is released from liability, its liability insurers are also released, even if not explicitly named in the release document. The court also affirmed the trial court's decision to sever the issue of insurer liability from other claims.

Liability ReleaseInsurance CarrierSummary JudgmentContractual InterpretationTexas LawDerivative LiabilitySeverance of ClaimsDeclaratory JudgmentSettlement AgreementNamed Insured
References
23
Case No. 01-16-00633-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2018

Donato Polignone and Neal D. Roy v. Bulldog Chemicals, LLC

Appellants Donato Polignone and Neal D. Roy challenged a no-answer default judgment rendered in favor of Appellee Bulldog Chemicals, LLC, stemming from a breach of contract and quantum meruit claim for unpaid goods totaling $21,750. The appellants argued the trial court erred by not granting their motion for new trial and by entering judgment against them individually, asserting a lack of standing as their business dealings were with NuGenTec Oilfield Chemicals, LLC, and their failure to answer was an oversight. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Bulldog Chemicals had standing and the appellants failed to meet the Craddock requirements for setting aside a default judgment. The Court also denied Bulldog Chemicals' request for sanctions for frivolous appeal.

Default judgmentbreach of contractquantum meruitstandingmotion for new trialCraddock testappellate reviewTexas lawcivil procedurecommercial dispute
References
51
Case No. 08-25-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2025

Helena Chemical Company v. Philip Bales, Derek Dieringer, Wilber Dieringer, Michael Hoch, CMH Farms, Inc., MH Farms Services, Inc., Whit Braden, Donald Braden and Streicher Farms, Inc.

Helena Chemical Company sought a permissive appeal of a trial court's interlocutory order denying its no-evidence motion for summary judgment in a toxic tort and negligence lawsuit. The Appellees, who are farmers and landowners, filed suit against Helena Chemical, alleging that its aerial application of herbicide negligently spread onto their cotton fields, causing damage to their crops and yields. Helena Chemical contended that the Texas Supreme Court's holding in Helena Chemical Company v. Cox, 664 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. 2023), dictated that the Appellees' expert scientific testimony was unreliable and amounted to no evidence of causation. However, the appellate court denied the petition for permissive appeal, concluding that the applicability of Cox as controlling precedent does not present a 'controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion,' as the standards for admissibility of expert testimony in toxic tort cases are well-established by Texas jurisprudence.

Permissive AppealInterlocutory OrderSummary JudgmentToxic TortNegligenceExpert TestimonyCausationHerbicide DriftCrop DamageTexas Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glod v. Ashland Chemical Co.

James Glod, and derivatively Lisa Glod, sued Eastman Chemical Products, Inc. and other defendants for injuries, specifically asthma, allegedly caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at Glod's workplace between 1982 and 1985. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on failure to state a cause of action and Statute of Limitations. The court granted dismissal of the seventh cause of action (unspecified statutory violations) and the first and second causes of action (strict liability and negligence) under CPLR 214-c, finding them time-barred. All other causes of action survived dismissal, and the plaintiffs' cross-motions to amend the complaint and declare CPLR 214-c unconstitutional were denied.

Toxic tortStatute of limitationsCPLR 214-cChemical exposureAsthmaPersonal injuryStrict liabilityNegligenceBreach of contractBreach of warranty
References
22
Case No. 09-06-298 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2006

in Re Exxon Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Individually F/K/A Mobil Oil Corporation and A/K/A Mobil Chemical Company, a Division of ExxonMobile Oil Corporation, Mobil Chemical Company, Inc., Individually and F/K/A Mobil Chemical Corporation

This mandamus proceeding before the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses whether a trial court can compel a party to present a deponent to detail efforts taken to search for documents. Exxon, defendants in underlying benzene exposure suits by Wilkinson, Hebert, and Stubbs, challenged a trial court's order requiring a deposition regarding their discovery compliance. The Court of Appeals found the order constituted an improper 'fishing expedition' that would invade attorney-client and work product privileges, as it sought to inquire into the mental processes of counsel. The court concluded the trial court abused its discretion and conditionally granted mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior discovery order.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeWork Product PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeFishing ExpeditionTexas Civil ProcedureOverbroad DiscoveryDepositionCorporate RepresentativeBenzene Exposure
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 716 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