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

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. 01-22-00712-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2024

Ernest Polk v. Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner

Ernest Polk, a Financial Examiner I, was terminated by the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (OCCC) for alleged misuse of his state credit card. Polk sued OCCC for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, claiming his promotion was delayed and termination was retaliatory after he reported racial discrimination. The trial court granted OCCC's Plea to the Jurisdiction, dismissing his claims. The appellate court affirmed, finding Polk failed to establish a causal link or pretext for his retaliation claim, did not exhaust administrative remedies for his race discrimination termination claim, and the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough for a hostile work environment claim.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionCredit Card MisuseFailure to PromotePrima Facie Case
References
68
Case No. 03-18-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Low Income Consumers, Mary Wilson and Hipolita Lutz v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a direct appeal challenging amendments to Rules 25.478 and 25.480 adopted by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas. The appellants, "Low Income Consumers," Mary Wilson, and Hipolita Lutz, along with the intervenor City of Houston, argued that the PUC failed to comply with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and misconstrued relevant statutes. They specifically contested the repeal of the split-deposit provision in former Rule 25.478(e)(3) and amendments to Rule 25.480 concerning late fees and deferred payment plans, asserting these were essential customer protections rather than benefits tied to the expired System Benefit Fund (SBF). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and adhered to the APA's notice and reasoned justification requirements. The court found that the contested provisions were not mandated protections under other sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).

Public Utility CommissionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)System Benefit Fund (SBF)RulemakingCustomer ProtectionsLow-income customersSplit-deposit provisionDeferred payment plansLate-fee waiverStatutory interpretation
References
22
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07309 [211 AD3d 621]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Matter of Runway Towing Corp., Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer & Worker Protection

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order that had vacated a determination by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCPW). Runway Towing Corp. Inc. had challenged DCPW's denial of its tow truck license renewal due to repeated overcharges for towing and storage fees under various programs. The Appellate Division found DCPW's determination rational and its penalty of license renewal denial proportionate to Runway's numerous violations over a two-year period. The court also dismissed Runway's claims that 6 RCNY 6-36 limited penalties to monetary fines and its due process arguments regarding license renewal.

Tow Truck LicenseExcessive Towing FeesLicense Renewal DenialAdministrative Code ViolationsProportionality of PenaltyDue Process RightsArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ReviewConsumer ProtectionWorker Protection
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02942 [205 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2022

Matter of Casino Towing Serv., Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer & Worker Protection

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment that denied a petition by Casino Towing Service, Inc. to annul a determination by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP). DCWP had suspended Casino Towing's tow truck license for three months due to violations of insurance coverage rules, specifically for modifying its policy to reduce coverage below mandated amounts and failing to report the change within 10 days. The Appellate Division found DCWP's determination to be rationally supported by the record and not arbitrary and capricious. The court further held that Casino Towing did not have a constitutional due process right to a hearing, as there is no property interest in the renewal of an expired license and adequate notice and opportunity for written submissions were provided. The penalty was also deemed not to shock the conscience.

Tow Truck License SuspensionInsurance Coverage ViolationsAdministrative Code ViolationsDue Process RightsLicense RenewalAppellate ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousPenalty Shock the ConscienceCPLR Article 78DCWP Determination
References
10
Case No. M2010-02553-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2011

Jeffrey L. Dillon v. NICA, Inc.

Jeffrey L. Dillon, a courier, sued NICA, Inc., Thomas M. McGrath, and others after his insurance claim for a workplace injury was denied. He alleged breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and conspiracy to evade the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court found Dillon to be an employee, not an independent contractor, and a jury found NICA and McGrath liable for violating the Consumer Protection Act, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of employment status and the Consumer Protection Act violation. However, it vacated the punitive damages award, citing that the Act does not authorize such damages, and remanded the case for consideration of treble damages.

Workers' CompensationConsumer Protection ActIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusInsurance BenefitsPunitive DamagesTreble DamagesBreach of ContractFraudAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chandler v. Prudential Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Dorothy G. Chandler sued Prudential Insurance Company of America after the termination of her long-term disability benefits. She alleged bad faith, outrageous conduct, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Prudential on the outrageous conduct, tort of bad faith, and Consumer Protection Act claims. Plaintiff later nonsuited her claim for the statutory bad-faith penalty. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the statutory bad-faith penalty (T.C.A. § 56-7-105) provides the exclusive remedy for bad faith actions against insurers in Tennessee. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for outrageous conduct and that the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act was not applicable based on the facts presented.

Disability BenefitsInsurance PolicyBad Faith ClaimOutrageous ConductConsumer Protection ActSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewInsurance LawTort Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garner v. East Texas National Bank of Palestine

Roy and Charla Garner filed suit against Phillip O. Watson and East Texas National Bank, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection acts for failure to make proper disclosures in a consumer credit transaction. The Garners had contracted with Watson to build a home, executing a lien contract and note. Watson then transferred his interest in the contract to East Texas National Bank to secure an interim construction loan. The Garners contended the Bank was liable as a 'subsequent assignee' for Watson's original non-disclosures and for its own alleged failures during a note renewal. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment, prompting an appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient admissible evidence to support the implied finding that the Bank held only a security interest in the Garners' note and was therefore not a 'subsequent assignee' liable under the consumer credit laws.

Consumer Credit LawTruth in Lending ActSecurity InterestsAssignment (Law)Parol Evidence RuleContract InterpretationAppellate ProcedureImplied Findings of FactFinancial Disclosure RequirementsReal Estate Finance
References
8
Case No. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,808 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