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

Employers Casualty Co. v. Dyess

This case addresses the subrogation rights of a workers' compensation carrier (Employers Casualty Co.) in relation to the employer's uninsured motorist coverage provided by Northbrook Property and Casualty Co. Carl L. Dyess, Jr., an employee, received workers' compensation benefits from Employers after being struck by an uninsured driver, Felipe Mendoza, during his employment. Dyess then sought recovery under his employer's uninsured motorist policy with Northbrook. Employers intervened, asserting statutory, contractual, and equitable subrogation rights for the benefits paid. The trial court granted summary judgment against Employers, ruling its subrogation rights did not extend to uninsured motorist coverage. The appellate court reversed, holding that statutory subrogation rights are not limited to third-party tortfeasors and that policy clauses attempting to abrogate these statutory rights are invalid. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, emphasizing the carrier's right to reimbursement to prevent double recovery by the employee.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation RightsUninsured Motorist CoverageSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationContractual LiabilityEquitable SubrogationInsurance LawTexas LawThird-Party Tortfeasor
References
38
Case No. 07-05-0386-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2007

Yorkshire Insurance Co. v. Diatom Drilling Co.

Insurers (Yorkshire Insurance Co., Ltd. and Ocean Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Diatom Drilling Co. and Employer’s Contractor Services, Inc. Insurers sought declaratory relief regarding a CGL policy's exclusion of liability for injury or death to "leased-in employees/workers." The case stems from a 1992 accident where Randall Jay Seger, an employee leased by ECS to Diatom, was killed. The appellate court found that the "Excluding Leased-In Employees/Workers" condition unambiguously excludes claims against Diatom/ECS related to such workers. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Diatom and ECS and rendered summary judgment for the Insurers, declaring the exclusion valid. The award of attorney's fees to Diatom and ECS was also reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Insurance policyDeclaratory judgmentSummary judgmentCGL policyLeased employeesWorker injuryCoverage disputePolicy exclusionAttorney's feesAppellate review
References
14
Case No. 08-05-00086-CV (TC#2003-2730)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Severiano Torres

This case concerns an appeal from the trial court's award of attorney's fees to Appellee Severiano Torres. Appellant Pacific Employers Insurance Co. initially challenged a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision by suing Torres. After nearly 19 months of litigation, Pacific Employers filed a notice of nonsuit, dismissing all claims against Torres without prejudice, shortly before trial. Subsequently, the trial court awarded attorney's fees to Torres. Pacific Employers appealed this award, contending that Torres was not a 'prevailing party' under Section 408.221 of the Texas Labor Code because the case was disposed of by nonsuit, arguing that a judicial ruling on the merits was required. The Court of Appeals disagreed, affirming the trial court's decision. It held that an employee who defends an award, and whose case is subsequently nonsuited by the insurance carrier, is considered a prevailing party for the purposes of the statute, especially given the legislative intent to liberally construe compensation provisions in favor of injured workers.

Attorney's FeesNonsuitPrevailing PartyStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeWorkers' Compensation AppealJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtInsurance Carrier LiabilityEmployee Claimant
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2010

Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. Penn-America Insurance Co.

This federal insurance dispute involves Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau seeking reimbursement from Penn-America Insurance Company and Prestige Oysters, Inc. Wausau settled claims for a restaurant customer injured by contaminated oysters, whose initial suit involved Bon Secour Fisheries and Shamrock Foods Company. Wausau argues for reimbursement based on Prestige Oysters' contractual and statutory indemnity obligations, while defendants assert Texas law precludes subrogation and allege Bon Secour's independent negligence. The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding that Texas law does not inherently bar Wausau's subrogation claim, but the record is insufficient to establish Bon Secour's independent liability. A status conference is scheduled to address unresolved issues.

Insurance DisputeSubrogationIndemnificationProducts LiabilityOystersNegligenceContractual IndemnityStatutory IndemnitySummary JudgmentTexas Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Kidder, Peabody & Co. Incorporated, alleging a pattern and practice of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) against investment bankers over the age of 40. Kidder Peabody moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the EEOC should be precluded from obtaining individual relief for claimants who had signed valid securities industry arbitration agreements. The Court, citing Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., determined that the EEOC could not seek monetary relief on behalf of individuals subject to arbitration agreements, as this would frustrate the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court also rejected the EEOC's waiver argument. Consequently, Kidder Peabody's motion to dismiss was granted, closing the action.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawADEAArbitration AgreementMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)EEOC EnforcementMonetary ReliefClass ActionWaiver
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance

Plaintiff insurance companies, Continental Insurance Co. and American Casualty Co. (CNA), initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they have no duty to indemnify Robert A. Keasbey Co. (Keasbey) for asbestos-related claims, arguing that all claims fall under exhausted products hazard/completed operations coverage. The defendant class of asbestos claimants sought coverage under a new 'operations' theory not subject to aggregate limits. The trial court ruled in favor of the claimants, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court found that equitable affirmative defenses like laches applied against the claimants, who stood in Keasbey’s shoes. It further determined that coverage is triggered by 'injury-in-fact' rather than mere exposure to asbestos, and that the aggregate limits of the primary and excess policies were exhausted, thus absolving CNA of further indemnity obligations.

AsbestosInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentProducts HazardCompleted OperationsOperations CoverageAggregate LimitsExcess InsuranceBodily InjuryInjury-in-Fact
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Macias v. Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

Jose Macias suffered two work-related injuries, one in March 1990 and another in October 1990 while in a work-hardening program. He signed a Compromise Settlement Agreement (CSA) for the March injury. After his claim for the October injury was denied, Macias sued Employers Casualty Co., who sought summary judgment. Employers argued the CSA covered both injuries or that the October injury was a direct result of treatment for the March injury. The trial court granted summary judgment for Employers. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the CSA unambiguously covered only the March injury and that a fact issue existed regarding the connection between the October injury and treatment for the March injury.

Workers' CompensationWork InjuryCompromise Settlement AgreementSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawIndustrial Accident BoardEmployer DirectionMedical TreatmentScope of Agreement
References
10
Case No. 03-96-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 1997

Metro Temps, Inc. and Metromarketing Services, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility Wm. Rigg Co. And Employers Insurance of Wausau

Metro Temps, Inc. and Metromarketing Services, Inc. appealed the trial court's dismissal of their claims against Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility, Wm. Rigg Co., and Employers Insurance of Wausau. The appellants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies concerning disputes over workers' compensation policy premiums and surcharges. The Third District Court of Appeals, Austin, affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that a district court lacks jurisdiction over claims, even those outside an administrative body's direct authority, when resolution depends on issues within the administrative body's jurisdiction and those remedies have not been exhausted. The court also dismissed the appellants' venue transfer claim due to insufficient record presentation.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionExhaustion of RemediesDeclaratory JudgmentBreach of ContractFraudConspiracyVenue TransferTexas Insurance Code
References
4
Case No. 09-03-496 CV; 09-03-532 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2004

in Re Granite Construction Co.

Granite Construction Co. appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration of a wrongful discharge claim filed by Milton Beaty. Granite also filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the Court of Appeals to direct the trial court to vacate its order and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court determined that Beaty's employment contract related to interstate commerce, making the FAA applicable. It found a valid arbitration agreement existed and that Beaty's wrongful discharge claim fell within its scope. Furthermore, the court held that Granite had not waived its right to arbitrate. As a result, the interlocutory appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering the trial court to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas Arbitration Act (TAA)Waiver of ArbitrationWrongful Discharge ClaimInterstate CommerceMandamus PetitionInterlocutory AppealEmployee Dispute Resolution Program (EDRP)Workers' Compensation Discrimination
References
11
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 21,135 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