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. 13-15-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2015

Hale-Mills Construction, Ltd., Hale-Mills Construction, Inc., and HMC Contracting South Texas LLC v. Willacy County

This appeal concerns the denial of Appellants' motion to compel Willacy County to arbitration. The core issue is whether Willacy County, a non-signatory to the underlying construction agreements, can be compelled to arbitrate claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, and implied warranty. Appellants argue for arbitration based on "direct benefits estoppel," while Willacy County asserts sovereign immunity and challenges the validity and enforceability of the arbitration clauses. The county highlights that the contracts were allegedly procured through bribery and led to substandard facility construction, resulting in significant damages, including the closure of a detention facility. The district court denied arbitration on multiple grounds, including sovereign immunity, unconscionability, and lack of valid agreement evidence.

ArbitrationSovereign ImmunityContract DisputeConstruction DefectsFraudNegligenceUnconscionabilityDirect Benefits EstoppelAppellate ProcedureTexas Law
References
39
Case No. E2010-00170-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2010

Dillard Construction, Inc. v. Haron Contracting Corp.

Dillard Construction, Inc. (Dillard) appealed a Chancery Court decision regarding a complex construction dispute with its demolition subcontractor, Havron Contracting Corp. (Havron). The lower court held Dillard liable to Havron for $91,100 under quantum meruit for work performed by Havron's subcontractors, denied Dillard an offset for damaged electrical equipment, and allowed Havron to recover attorney's fees awarded against it to its subcontractor H&S Construction through a 'pass-through' indemnity theory from Dillard. Dillard challenged the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, while Havron challenged the denial of indemnification for its own incurred attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, finding the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny Havron its own attorney's fees, citing Havron's lack of good faith in denying payment to H&S and its violation of the Prompt Pay Act.

Construction DisputeQuantum MeruitContract LawIndemnityAttorney's FeesSubcontractor ClaimsPrompt Pay ActBreach of ContractEquitable RemediesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

MSK Construction, Inc. v. Mayse Construction Company

MSK Construction, Inc. (MSK) filed a breach of oral contract action against Mayse Construction Company (Mayse) for failure to pay for equipment and fuel used in a construction project for the City of Athens. Mayse denied liability and filed a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, alleging MSK failed to include concrete testing costs in their estimate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MSK, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, and denied Mayse's counterclaim. Mayse appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, finding a valid oral contract existed and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Breach of Oral ContractConstruction DisputeEquipment UsePrejudgment InterestNegligent MisrepresentationSubcontractor AgreementVendor AgreementAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationsDamages
References
28
Case No. 08-10-00222-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

David Nelson, Individually and D/B/A Collective Contracting, a Sole Proprietorship Collective Contracting, Inc. E. E. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Vernco Construction, Inc.

Vernco Construction, Inc. (Appellee) sued David Nelson and E.E. Hood & Sons, Inc. (Appellants) for multiple claims including breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and various fraud claims. The Appellants challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that Vernco had assigned its interest in the claims to Jefferson State Bank via a forbearance agreement. The appellate court examined the forbearance agreement, concluding that it unambiguously transferred ownership of the litigation and its proceeds to the bank. This transfer deprived Vernco of any retained interest or standing in the lawsuit. Consequently, the appellate court determined that both the trial court and the appellate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, leading to the vacating of the trial court's judgment and the dismissal of the case.

StandingSubject Matter JurisdictionAssignment of ClaimsForbearance AgreementBreach of ContractAppellate JurisdictionTexas Business and Commerce CodeJudicial ReviewCase DismissalVacated Judgment
References
20
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 32713(11)
Regular Panel Decision

Caballero v. BenJamin Beechwood, LLC

This case concerns appeals and cross-appeals stemming from a personal injury action where the plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold at a construction site in Queens. The Supreme Court's order addressed motions for summary judgment regarding Labor Law violations and contractual indemnification among the property owner (Benjamin Beechwood, LLC), general contractor (Rockaway Beach Blvd. Construction Co., LLC), and subcontractor (LCC Contracting Corp.). The appellate court affirmed the order, holding Benjamin Beechwood, LLC, and Rockaway Beach Blvd. Construction Co., LLC, liable under Labor Law § 240 (1), while dismissing the same claim against LCC Contracting Corp. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the contractual indemnification claim of Benjamin Beechwood, LLC, and Rockaway Beach Blvd. Construction Co., LLC, against LCC Contracting Corp. Appeals by Linden Construction Corp. and certain aspects of LCC Contracting Corp.'s appeal and Benjamin Beechwood, LLC, and Rockaway Beach Blvd. Construction Co., LLC's cross-appeal were dismissed as not aggrieved.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewQueens CountyNegligenceSubcontractor Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cueto v. Hamilton Plaza Co.

Victor Cueto, a construction worker, was injured when a ceiling fell on him at a construction site. After settling his workers’ compensation claim against his employer, Arkay Contracting, Cueto filed a personal injury lawsuit. The defendant, Reckson Construction and Development, LLC, initiated a third-party action against Arkay for common-law indemnification and contribution. Special Trades Contracting and Construction Trust, Arkay’s workers’ compensation administrator, moved to dismiss the third-party claim, asserting that Cueto had not suffered a “grave injury” as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would bar such claims. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the appellate court affirmed, finding that the third-party complaint sufficiently alleged a “grave injury” when afforded a liberal construction.

grave injuryworkers compensation lawindemnificationcontributionpersonal injuryconstruction accidentCPLR 3211(a)(7)motion to dismissthird-party actionemployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Ex Rel. E & R Construction Co. v. Guy H. James Construction Co.

E & R Construction Co., Inc. sued Guy H. James Construction Company and Federal Insurance Company under the Miller Act for breach of a subcontract related to the Cordell Hull Lock and Dam project. E & R presented twelve claims alleging material interference and breaches of contract by James, leading to increased costs and damages. The court found that James materially breached the contract through various actions, including wrongfully depositing shot rock, requiring extra work, and causing delays, entitling E & R to recover damages on several claims under a *quantum meruit* theory. However, the court denied claims regarding arbitrary dredge limits and dredge delay. The court also clarified that the surety, Federal Insurance Company, was not liable for certain delay and property damage claims.

Construction LawMiller ActSubcontractBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitDelay DamagesConstruction DisputesFederal CourtContract InterferenceSite Conditions
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forrest Construction Co. v. Laughlin

This action involves claims arising from the construction of a residence in Williamson County for James and Debbie Laughlin by Forrest Construction Company, LLC. Forrest Construction filed a breach-of-contract action against Mr. Laughlin and a quantum meruit action against Mrs. Laughlin, claiming Mr. Laughlin breached the contract by failing to pay. The Laughlins counterclaimed for negligent construction, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court initially found Mr. Laughlin in material breach, but also awarded damages to the Laughlins for negligent construction. On appeal, the Court found that Forrest Construction was the first to materially breach the contract by failing to provide proper documentation of costs and abandoning the project. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding that Mr. Laughlin breached the contract and the awards to Forrest Construction. It affirmed that the Laughlins were excused from giving notice to cure defects due to Forrest Construction's material breach. The case was remanded to the trial court to re-evaluate the damages for negligent construction and to address the issue of piercing the corporate veil against Thomas Naive.

Construction ContractBreach of ContractNegligent ConstructionQuantum MeruitCorporate Veil PiercingDamagesMaterial BreachHome ConstructionCost Plus ContractAppellate Review
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NYU Hospitals Center v. HRH Construction LLC (In re HRH Construction LLC)

NYU Hospitals Center appealed a Bankruptcy Court ruling in favor of HRH Construction LLC and Curtis Partition Corporation concerning a construction contract dispute for a radiology center renovation. NYU alleged HRH breached the contract by failing to proceed with Phase 2, while HRH claimed NYU obstructed its performance by contacting a replacement contractor and failing to make timely payments. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's findings that NYU breached the contract and its awards for damages to HRH and Curtis. However, the District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's holding that NYU held monies due to Curtis in trust under New York Lien Law Article 3-A, concluding no trust funds were established. All other claims by NYU against Curtis, including willful exaggeration of lien and indemnification, were denied.

Construction DisputeBreach of ContractBankruptcy AppealContractual ObligationsTimely PaymentsSubcontractor DisputesMechanic's LienIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party BeneficiaryFrustration of Performance
References
23
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01845
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2021

Goya v. Longwood Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.

This case from the Appellate Division, First Department, involves appeals related to a Labor Law action stemming from an incident on a fire escape ladder. The court modified several Supreme Court orders, granting summary judgment dismissal for A.A.D. Construction Corp. on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, while denying renewal for a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It also addressed complex issues of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance among various defendants and third-party defendants, including Longwood Housing Development Fund Co., Inc., Melcara Corp., AIM Construction of NY Inc., Clark & Wilkins Industries, Inc., Cross Contracting, Inc., and Triboro Maintenance Corp. The court affirmed in part, modified in part, and reversed a judgment dismissing a contribution claim, reinstating it.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceElevation-Related RiskFire Escape LadderStatutory AgentAnti-Subrogation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 6,691 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