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
Dec 16, 1983

Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.

This class action lawsuit was filed by residents against Velsicol Chemical Corporation, alleging personal injury and property damages due to chemical waste contamination. Plaintiffs, property owners and residents within a three-mile radius of Velsicol's chemical waste burial site in Hardeman County, Tennessee, claimed their home wells were contaminated by hazardous chemicals. The court found Velsicol liable on grounds of strict liability, common law negligence, trespass, and nuisance, citing gross negligence in the operation of the chemical waste dump. The court awarded compensatory damages totaling over $5 million to five representative plaintiffs and $7.5 million in punitive damages to the class, along with pre-judgment interest from July 1965.

Toxic WasteGroundwater ContaminationClass ActionStrict LiabilityNegligenceTrespassNuisancePersonal InjuryProperty DamagePunitive Damages
References
15
Case No. 01-08-00591-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2009

Air Products & Chemicals Inc. v. Odfjell Seachem A/S, Odfjell Asia Pte. Ltd., and Odfjell Singapore Pte., Ltd

Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. (AP) sued Odfjell Seachem A/S and related entities (Seachem) alleging negligence after Seachem's vessel, the Bow Favour, discharged chemicals into AP's storage tank, causing product contamination. AP appealed the trial court's judgment, challenging four key rulings: the denial of its motion to amend pleadings to include negligence per se, the refusal to instruct the jury on negligence per se, the admission of certain hearsay testimony, and the instruction to apportion liability between Seachem and a settled defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the pleading amendment or jury instruction. It also concluded any hearsay error was harmless given cumulative evidence, and deemed the apportionment issue immaterial since the jury found Seachem not negligent.

NegligenceNegligence Per SePleading AmendmentJury InstructionHearsay EvidenceApportionment of FaultHazardous Material SpillProduct ContaminationVessel OperationsTrial Court Discretion
References
19
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Controls Solutions, Inc., United Phosphorus, Inc. and Mark Boyd v. Gharda USA, Inc. and Gharda Chemical Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal from a trial court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in a products liability and negligence lawsuit. Appellants Control Solutions, Inc., United Phosphorous, Inc., and Mark Boyd sued Gharda Chemicals, Ltd. and Gharda USA, Inc., alleging that "off-spec" chemicals caused a warehouse fire. The appellate court found that the trial court erroneously disregarded expert testimony regarding fire origin, chemical contamination, and manufacturing defects. Concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on negligence, product defect, and causation, the court reversed the JNOV. The case was remanded for entry of judgment on the original jury verdict in favor of the appellants.

Product LiabilityNegligenceManufacturing DefectMarketing DefectExpert Testimony ReliabilityDaubert StandardJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Fire InvestigationChemical ContaminationChlorpyrifos
References
48
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
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. 01-02-00449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2003

Continental Casualty Co. v. Fina Oil and Chemical Co.

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance policy dispute between Continental Casualty Company (Continental) and Fina Oil & Chemical Company (Fina). Continental appealed a trial court's judgment that declared Fina an additional insured under a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Continental to A&B Builders, Inc., and awarded Fina damages for breach of contract. Fina cross-appealed the trial court's determination that Continental did not waive its right to subrogation. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the judgment, holding that Fina was not an additional insured on the date of the injury as there was no written contract explicitly requiring such coverage. The court also found that even if Fina were an additional insured, coverage for liability arising from Fina's own acts was excluded, and that Continental did not waive its subrogation rights. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment that Fina take nothing by way of its suit against Continental.

Insurance Policy DisputeAdditional InsuredBreach of ContractSubrogation RightsSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationCommercial General LiabilityWorker's Compensation BenefitsTexas Appellate LawNegligence Exclusion
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 408 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