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

Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co.

This case concerns a breach of contract dispute between Mustang Pipeline Co. (Mustang) and Driver Pipeline Co. (Driver) regarding a pipeline construction project. Mustang sued Driver for failing to complete work timely, while Driver counterclaimed for wrongful termination. The jury initially found both parties breached, but the Supreme Court of Texas clarified that an express jury finding on materiality is not required when 'time is of the essence,' determining Driver's breach was material as a matter of law. This discharged Mustang from its obligations, invalidating the wrongful termination claim. However, Mustang failed to provide sufficient evidence that its claimed damages were reasonable and necessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment for Driver, rendered judgment that Driver take nothing, and reversed the award of attorney's fees to Driver, upholding the denial of damages to Mustang.

Breach of ContractMaterial BreachTime is of the EssenceWrongful TerminationContract DamagesReasonableness of CostsAttorney's FeesJury InstructionsAffirmative DefenseJudgment Notwithstanding Verdict
References
12
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. 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. 07-05-00188-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2007

Yorkshire Insurance Co., LTD. and Ocean Marine Insurance Co., LTD. v. Roy S. Seger, Individually and Shirley Faye Hoskins, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Randall Jay Seger

The case involves an appeal by Yorkshire Insurance Co., Ltd., and Ocean Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., against Roy Seger and Shirley Faye Hoskins. The insurers appealed a judgment of over $26 million in actual damages related to a "Stowers" action, stemming from the death of Randall Jay Seger in a drilling accident. The core issues involved whether the insurers were unauthorized, the applicability of a "leased-in worker" exclusion in their CGL policy, and whether the Segers' settlement demands were within policy limits. The court ruled that the 1993 amendments to the Insurance Code applied retroactively and affirmed that the Segers made a sufficient settlement demand within policy limits. However, it reversed the summary judgment on coverage, finding the "leased-in worker" exclusion unambiguous and potentially applicable, and also reversed the directed verdict on damages, as a fact issue remained regarding whether the underlying judgment was the result of a "fully adversarial trial." The case was thus largely remanded for a new trial.

Insurance disputeStowers actionNegligent failure to settleSurplus lines insuranceUnauthorized insurersContract defensesSummary judgmentDirected verdictDamagesFully adversarial trial
References
33
Case No. E2009-01330-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2010

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Dale Penney, d/b/a DLP Construction Co.

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. sued Dale Penney, d/b/a DLP Construction Co., to recover additional workers' compensation insurance premiums. The dispute centered on whether workers utilized by Penney were employees or independent contractors for premium assessment purposes, particularly in light of I-18 "Election of Non-Coverage by Subcontractor" Forms. The trial court ruled in favor of Hartford, finding the workers to be employees and awarding $12,316 plus costs and pre-judgment interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's finding that the workers were employees, thus upholding the premium assessment, but vacated the award of pre-judgment interest and remanded that issue for further clarification from the trial court.

Insurance PremiumsEmployee ClassificationIndependent Contractor StatusI-18 FormsPremium AuditPre-judgment InterestAppellate Court DecisionWorkers' Compensation LawContractual ObligationsTennessee Law
References
18
Case No. 04-14-00622-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2014

Marisela G. Salas, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Martin Suarez and as Next Friend of Keyla Marizel Salas Suares, Minor v. Allen Keller Co. I, L.L.C. D/B/A Allen Keller Co.

This case concerns an appeal of a summary judgment granted in favor of Allen Keller Co., a general contractor, in a negligence lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the estate of Martin Suarez, an employee of subcontractor C&B White Services, Inc., who died after falling from a truck while moving traffic control signs on a TxDOT roadway project. The appellant argued that Allen Keller Co. retained sufficient control over the work to be held liable. The trial court determined that Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code did not apply and granted summary judgment based on common law, finding that Allen Keller Co. did not exercise sufficient control over the specific activity causing the injury and had no actual knowledge of the danger. The appellee's brief asks the appellate court to affirm the trial court's judgment.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityDuty of CareTraffic ControlConstruction AccidentWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Inc. v. Dal-Worth Tank

St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (St. Paul) appealed a judgment in favor of Dai-Worth Tank Co. (Dai-Worth) and Mission Butane Gas Co., raising fifty-six points of error concerning a "Mary Carter agreement," insufficient evidence, and damage awards. Dai-Worth cross-appealed for exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed many of the jury's findings, including St. Paul's negligence, breach of good faith, deceptive practices, and unconscionable actions, finding St. Paul had actual knowledge of the lawsuit and was estopped from denying coverage. However, the court reversed the award for future lost profits due to insufficient evidence, necessitating a recalculation of actual damages, treble damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees. The case was remanded to the trial court for these computations, upholding the principle that exemplary damages and statutory treble damages cannot both be recovered for the same acts.

Insurance LawAppellate ProcedureMary Carter AgreementDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Bad Faith InsuranceNegligenceBreach of ContractLost ProfitsDefault JudgmentAgency Law
References
104
Case No. 13-99-271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2002

West, Randy and Antonia West v. Maintenance Tool and Supply Co., Inc. and Rene Rodriguez, Individually and as Representative of Maintenance Tool and Supply Co., Inc.

The appellants, Randy and Antonia West, appealed a default summary judgment granted in favor of appellees, Maintenance Tool & Supply Co., Inc. and Rene Rodriguez. The claims at issue were workers' compensation retaliation and defamation, along with sanctions imposed against West's counsel. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, finding that Maintenance Tool & Supply Co. established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for West's termination and that West had adequate notice of the hearing. The defamation claim was also affirmed for summary judgment due to judicial proceeding privilege. However, the court reversed the order imposing sanctions, ruling that the trial court abused its discretion by not providing notice and an evidentiary hearing as required by procedural rules before imposing sanctions.

Summary judgmentWorkers' compensation retaliationDefamationRule 13 sanctionsAbuse of discretionNotice of hearingMotion for new trialCausation employment lawJudicial proceeding privilegeAttorney conduct
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1969

Hedges Manufacturing Co. v. Worley

Curtis A. Davis, with a pre-existing 70% disability, sustained a new injury in August 1967 while employed by Hedges Manufacturing Co. The trial court found Davis 30% permanently partially disabled from the 1967 injury and 100% permanently and totally disabled from the combined injuries, awarding benefits against Hedges/Aetna and the Second Injury Fund. The initial judgment was set aside and amended due to incorrect computation of liability and credits for temporary total disability payments. The amended judgment awarded Davis $5,040.00 from Hedges Manufacturing Co. and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. and $8,818.00 from the Second Injury Fund. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's amended judgment, overruling assignments of error regarding credit for temporary total disability payments and computation method.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityInsurer LiabilityPre-existing Condition
References
6
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,299 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