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. 2016 NY Slip Op 01555
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2016

Lois v. Flintlock Construction Services, LLC

Plaintiff Jorge Lois, an employee of J&R Glassworks, Inc., sued Flintlock Construction Services, LLC and Bass Associates, LLC, after slipping and falling on a plastic tarp and broken concrete at a construction site. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss Lois's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and their contractual indemnification claim against J&R. The court denied both motions, finding issues of fact regarding Bass Associates' role as an owner, the defendants' responsibility for the hazardous condition, and the applicability of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2). Additionally, J&R failed to demonstrate an absence of factual issues concerning its notice of the hazardous condition, thereby upholding the contractual indemnification claim against it.

Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentSlip and FallThird-Party ActionOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityHazardous Condition
References
7
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cebcor Service Corp. v. Landscape Design and Construction, Inc.

This case involves Cebcor Service Corporation appealing a trial court's judgment that held them liable for a default judgment previously rendered against Consolidated Employment Benefit Service Corporation, also known as Cebcor Service Corporation. Cebcor argued it was never served in the underlying action and that the alter ego theory, which linked it to Consolidated, was irrelevant and improperly pleaded. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that service on an alter ego constitutes valid service. The court further determined that the alter ego theory was properly pleaded and relevant to the issue of service of process in a bill of review case, and noted that Cebcor had waived challenges to the original service on Consolidated.

Alter EgoDefault JudgmentService of ProcessBill of ReviewCorporate LiabilityTexas LawAppellate ReviewCorporate VeilProcedural IssuesDue Diligence
References
13
Case No. 13-22-00536-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

Graham Construction Services, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. City of Corpus Christi

This case involved a significant contract dispute between Graham Construction Services, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (Appellants) and the City of Corpus Christi (Appellee) concerning the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant. Graham alleged the City caused project delays and cost overruns, while the City counterclaimed for Graham's failure to complete project phases and defects in the UV disinfection system. Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a complex judgment with awards to both parties, resulting in a net payment to the City. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding the City's costs to complete Phase 2 and Graham's attorney's fees. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's award of $498,270 in delay damages to Graham and rendered judgment for the City to recover $559,000 in liquidated delay damages.

Construction LawContract DisputeBreach of ContractWastewater Treatment PlantLiquidated DamagesDelay DamagesPerformance BondCondition PrecedentMaterial BreachAttorney's Fees
References
65
Case No. 14-18-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2019

James Construction Group, LLC, Primoris Services Corporation v. Westlake Chemical Corporation

James Construction Group, LLC and Primoris Services Corporation appealed a judgment concerning contract claims with Westlake Chemical Corporation. Chemical had initially sued James for breach of a construction contract, citing safety violations and a failure to indemnify. The jury found James liable for breach of contract and indemnification, leading to damages and attorney's fees awarded against Primoris due to a guaranty. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's findings on James's liability and the attorney's fees against Primoris. Crucially, the court reversed the trial court's judgment awarding James damages on its counterclaim, clarifying that a contractual waiver of consequential damages serves as an affirmative defense rather than a basis for a breach-of-contract claim.

Contract LawBreach of ContractConstruction ContractIndemnificationGuaranty AgreementAttorney's FeesConsequential DamagesWaiver of DamagesConditions PrecedentSubstantial Compliance
References
136
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lazenby v. HMT Construction Services, Inc.

John Lazenby, a Texas resident, appealed a summary judgment that he take nothing in his personal injury suit against his employer, HMT Construction Services, Inc. Lazenby was injured in Delaware while working for HMT, a Pennsylvania-based company, and had received benefits from HMT's Pennsylvania workers' compensation carrier without filing a formal claim. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for HMT because HMT failed to establish that Lazenby's injury was covered by workers' compensation in any state (Texas, Pennsylvania, or Delaware). The appellate court further determined that Lazenby's mere acceptance of benefits did not constitute an election of remedies that would bar his common-law negligence claim. The judgment was reversed and remanded, with the court distinguishing the case from precedent like Larchmont Farms, Inc. v. Parra, due to HMT's failure to prove its subscriber status with respect to Lazenby's injury.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjurySummary Judgment AppealElection of RemediesTexas LawPennsylvania LawDelaware LawEmployer LiabilityNon-subscriber EmployerFull Faith and Credit
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. (Integrated) purchased a commercial general liability policy from Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale). Integrated received delayed and initially incorrect notifications about a worker's injury. After clarifying details, Integrated notified Scottsdale, which denied coverage citing late notice. Integrated then filed a declaratory judgment action to compel Scottsdale to defend and indemnify it. Scottsdale's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the order denying dismissal was affirmed, as Integrated adequately pleaded reasonable delay and Scottsdale's documentary evidence was insufficient to refute the claim.

Commercial General LiabilityInsurance PolicyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLate NoticeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary Evidence
References
10
Case No. E1998-00535-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 1999

Jerry Duncan Ford, Inc. v. J. Roy Frost, d/b/a Frost Construction Company

This case consolidates three breach of contract actions stemming from major renovations to an automobile dealership. Jerry Duncan Ford, Inc. sued its general contractor, J. Roy Frost d/b/a Frost Construction Company, for unsatisfactory performance, while Frost counter-sued for breach of contract. A third party, Customer Service Electric Supply, Inc., sued Jerry Duncan Ford, Frost, and the Duncans for unpaid light fixtures. The trial court found an oral guaranteed maximum price of $313,200 by Frost and awarded damages to Jerry Duncan Ford for costs exceeding this guarantee and for defective workmanship. Customer Service also received damages against Frost but its claim against Jerry Duncan Ford and the Duncans was dismissed for lack of proof. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, concluding that parol evidence was properly admitted, that the evidence supported the finding of a guaranteed price, and that Frost had sufficient notice and opportunity to cure defects.

Breach of contractConstruction disputesGuaranteed maximum priceParol evidence ruleWitness credibilityQuantum meruitSubcontractor claimsConstruction defectsContract terminationAppellate review
References
13
Case No. M2020-01417-SC-R23-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2021

Affordable Construction Services, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

Affordable Construction Services, Inc., a general contractor, sued Auto-Owners Insurance Company after the insurer failed to name the contractor as a payee on an insurance proceeds check issued to the insured property owner, Grand Valley Lakes Property Owners Association, Inc., despite damages exceeding $1,000 as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-111. The case, originating from a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, sought to determine if section 56-7-111 provides a private right of action for a general contractor. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the statute does not expressly grant or imply a private right of action. Consequently, the general contractor has no legal standing to sue the insurance company for noncompliance with the statute.

Private Right of ActionStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawGeneral ContractorProperty DamageCertified Question of LawLegislative IntentTennessee Supreme CourtInsurance ProceedsPayee Requirement
References
24
Case No. 2-06-192-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2007

Jose D. Posada v. Anivar Sarvelio Romero and Envirotec Construction Services, Inc.

Jose D. Posada sued Anivar Sarvelio Romero and Envirotec Construction Services, Inc. for neck and back injuries sustained when a water hose he was using became entangled in Romero's trailer. Envirotec, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, was Posada's employer. Posada incurred over $17,000 in medical expenses. Prior to trial, Envirotec filed a counter-affidavit by Dr. William Mitchell, an orthopedic surgeon, challenging the necessity and reasonableness of much of Posada's medical treatment. The trial court excluded a significant portion of Posada's medical expenses based on this counter-affidavit. A jury subsequently awarded Posada $5,420.00, including lost wages and a portion of past medical expenses. Posada appealed, raising two issues regarding Dr. Mitchell's expert qualifications and the validity of a supplemental report attached to the counter-affidavit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Dr. Mitchell qualified and the report properly incorporated.

Personal InjuryNegligenceMedical ExpensesExpert WitnessCounter-affidavitCivil ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeOrthopedic SurgeryChiropractic CareExcessive Treatment
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 12,228 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