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. 2019-03-1017; 46052-2019
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2020

Friend, Kenneth v. Staples Contract and Commercial, LLC

The employee, Kenneth Friend, a sales manager, suffered a right knee injury while performing work activities over June 19-20, 2019, which was diagnosed as a meniscal tear requiring surgery. The employer, Staples Contract and Commercial, LLC, denied the claim, arguing the injury was acute and not a compensable gradual injury by specific incident. The trial court ordered medical benefits and surgery but denied temporary disability benefits, leading both parties to appeal. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the employee's injury arose from a "set of incidents" identifiable by time and place, thus meeting the statutory definition for a compensable accidental injury. The Board also upheld the denial of temporary disability benefits due to the employee's waiver for certain weeks and work for his family's business.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryMeniscal TearAcute InjurySet of IncidentsTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. W2019-02089-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2022

Commercial Painting Company INC. v. The Weitz Company LLC

This is the third appeal in a commercial construction project dispute between general contractor Weitz Company, LLC and subcontractor Commercial Painting Company, Inc. Commercial Painting originally sued Weitz for damages, including intentional misrepresentation and breach of contract, resulting in a jury award of $1,729,122.46 in compensatory damages and $3,900,000.00 in punitive damages, plus interest and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee held that the economic loss rule applies to construction contracts between sophisticated commercial entities, thus barring the fraud claim and punitive damages. The court affirmed the compensatory damages for breach of contract but reversed the punitive damages and pre/post-judgment interest due to contractual waivers. The attorney's fees award was vacated and remanded for reconsideration to reflect only those fees related to the affirmed compensatory damages.

Commercial ConstructionSubcontractor DisputeBreach of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationEconomic Loss RulePunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesAttorney's FeesPre-judgment InterestPost-judgment Interest
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aluminum Co. of America v. Commercial Contracting Co. of San Antonio

Alcoa sued Commercial Contracting Co. based on an indemnity clause in their contract, seeking to recover a $6,000 settlement paid to Bobby G. Holloway and associated legal fees. Holloway, a subcontractor's employee, was injured at Alcoa's plant due to what Alcoa alleged was negligence by Commercial's subcontractor or by an Alcoa employee who was a 'borrowed servant' of the subcontractor. The jury found that the subcontractor's employees were not negligent and that Alcoa's employees were not borrowed servants. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings that Alcoa's employees were not borrowed servants and that negligence was not conclusively established against the subcontractor.

Indemnity ContractBorrowed EmployeeEmployer NegligenceSubcontractor NegligenceProximate CausationJury FindingsAppellate AffirmationContractual LiabilityPersonal Injury LitigationWorkmen's Compensation Settlement
References
10
Case No. W2013-01989-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2014

Commercial Painting Company, Inc. v. The Weitz Company, LLC

This case involves a construction contract dispute between subcontractor Commercial Painting Company, Inc. and general contractor The Weitz Company, LLC. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Weitz on Commercial Painting's tort claims, but subsequently awarded judgment to Commercial Painting on other issues after trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court applied an incorrect standard when granting summary judgment on the tort claims, including fraud, misrepresentation, and rescission. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the summary judgment order and remanded the case, declining to address other contractual issues, as their resolution could be affected by the renewed consideration of the tort and rescission claims.

Construction ContractSummary JudgmentContract DisputeTort ClaimsNegligent MisrepresentationIntentional MisrepresentationRescissionPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewVacated and Remanded
References
37
Case No. 03-11-00327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. v. Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez

This case involves a lease dispute between Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. (Appellants) and Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez (Appellees). Appellants appealed a trial court's summary judgment which declared that Cedar Contracting's assignment of its commercial lease rights and subsequent sublease violated the lease terms with Connie Hernandez. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the lease terminated upon Hernandez's notice of termination and that Cedar Contracting did not have an unrestricted right to assign or sublease the property without the landlord's consent. The court concluded that the phrase 'or its assigns' in the lease did not override the explicit restriction and found no error in the trial court's decision that Hernandez was justified in interfering with the sublease.

Lease DisputeCommercial LeaseAssignment of LeaseSubleaseLandlord ConsentSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationNotice of TerminationTortious InterferenceAttorney's Fees
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc.

Appellant Leonardo Rodriguez appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc. in a suit concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rodriguez was injured while working and asserted negligence claims against Lockhart Contracting, arguing he was not an employee of Prime Source, the Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Lockhart Contracting had a co-employment agreement with. The appellate court identified a genuine issue of material fact regarding Rodriguez's employment status with Prime Source, as he had not completed the necessary employment paperwork. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had barred Rodriguez's suit based on the exclusive remedy provision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation DisputeExclusive Remedy DefenseProfessional Employer Organization LiabilityCo-employment RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor Code ComplianceWorkplace Injury ClaimAppellate Review StandardFactual DisputeNegligence Action
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pathmark Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 342-50

Pathmark, an employer, initiated a lawsuit against the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 342 50, a labor union, due to an ongoing labor dispute. The core of Pathmark's complaint alleged breach of contract and various tortious acts by the Union, stemming from disagreements over the interpretation and application of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The central legal question before the court was whether Pathmark's claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the CBA, as the Union contended that the grievance and arbitration procedures were exclusively for employees. Applying the strong presumption of arbitrability in labor law, the court meticulously analyzed Article XXIII of the CBA, concluding that its broad language encompassed employer-initiated disputes despite the primary focus on employee grievances. Consequently, the court granted the Union's motion to dismiss Pathmark's federal contract claims, compelling arbitration, and subsequently declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Labor disputeArbitrationCollective bargaining agreementEmployer claimsUnion rightsGrievance procedureArbitrabilitySecond CircuitMotion to dismissFederal court jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falkowski v. Krasdale Foods, Inc.

This case involves appeals and a cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. Commercial Personnel Services, Inc., Commercial Transportation Group, and Commercial Logistics, Inc. appealed parts of the order that granted summary judgment to Krasdale Foods, Inc. on claims of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. Krasdale Foods, Inc. cross-appealed the granting of the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a negligent entrustment cause of action, and the denial of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order regarding both the appeals and the cross-appeal. This decision upholds the lower court's rulings on contractual indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and the allowance of the amended complaint for negligent entrustment, while denying Krasdale's motion to dismiss the complaint due to unresolved issues of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceNegligent EntrustmentAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmed Order
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance

This case involves a dispute between two insurance companies, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (excess insurer) and Commercial Union Insurance Company (primary insurer), concerning liability for an injury claim. Michael Jutt, an employee of Minuteman Press International, Inc., was injured while on a Minuteman-owned boat. Commercial Union, the primary insurer, denied coverage and refused to defend Minuteman, leading Hartford, the excess insurer, to provide defense and settle Jutt's claim for $135,000. Hartford subsequently sued Commercial Union for breach of fiduciary duty. The District Court affirmed Hartford's standing to sue, recognizing a direct fiduciary duty owed by a primary insurer to an excess insurer, and found that the "paid employees" exclusion in Commercial Union's policy was ambiguous. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Hartford, ordering Commercial Union to pay $135,000 plus interest.

Insurance LawExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceFiduciary DutyEquitable SubrogationPolicy ExclusionAmbiguous Contract TermDeclaratory Judgment ActionStanding to SueMarine Insurance
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,992 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