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. 03-03-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

Berry Contracting, L.P. v. Texas Workforce Commission

Berry Contracting, L.P. appealed a district court decision that affirmed the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) denial of an unemployment tax refund. Berry Contracting had sought a partial transfer of compensation experience to achieve a lower unemployment tax rate, attempting a strategy where two employees were transferred to a new entity before a larger group. TWC denied the application, ruling that the legal department's compensation experience was not "segregable" as per Labor Code § 204.084, interpreting the term to require the transferred part of the business to be capable of independent operation. The appeals court upheld the district court's judgment, finding TWC's interpretation of "segregable" as reasonable and concluding that the legal department was not a distinct and separate business able to operate independently from Berry GP, Inc.

Unemployment Tax RefundCompensation Experience TransferLabor Code InterpretationSegregable BusinessTax Savings StrategyAgency Decision ReviewStatutory ConstructionInternal ReorganizationTexas Unemployment Compensation ActJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
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
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

A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. v. RFD 55th Street LLC

Plaintiff A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. sought to foreclose upon 76 mechanic’s liens filed against condominium units and asserted claims for breach of contract and quasi-contractual remedies. The defendants, including RFD 55th Street LLC and individual unit owners, moved to discharge the liens and dismiss the causes of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss all four causes of action. The mechanic's liens were found invalid under Lien Law § 13 (5) as the deeds of conveyance to third-party purchasers contained the required trust fund provision and were recorded before the liens were filed. The breach of contract claim against non-parties was dismissed due to lack of privity and insufficient allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The quasi-contractual claims were also dismissed as a valid written contract existed covering the disputed subject matter.

Mechanic's LiensLien LawMotion to DismissBreach of ContractQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentCorporate Veil PiercingPrivity of ContractConstruction Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Microtech Contracting Corp. v. Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York

Plaintiff Microtech Contracting Corporation sought a preliminary injunction to stop defendants, including the Mason Tenders District Council and Local 78, from displaying an inflatable rat at its work sites. Microtech argued this conduct violated a 'no-strike' provision in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The District Court denied the motion, citing a lack of jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act because the underlying labor dispute was not subject to mandatory arbitration as per the CBA. The court also held that Section 104 of the Act specifically prohibits injunctions against publicizing labor disputes by non-fraudulent or non-violent means. Furthermore, the court determined that even if jurisdiction existed, the use of the inflatable rat was protected First Amendment speech and did not fall under the 'disruptive activity' clause of the CBA, which was interpreted to apply only to actions similar to work stoppages.

labor disputepreliminary injunctionNorris-LaGuardia Actcollective bargaining agreementFirst Amendmentinflatable ratunion protestno-strike clausearbitrabilityjurisdiction
References
22
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Ronald Caiazzo, Jr. sued Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., Julia Coen, and Ana Reyes for personal injuries sustained while installing an air conditioning system at a house owned by Julia Coen. Caiazzo fell from a makeshift step, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims against Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., and Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Julia Coen, citing the homeowner exemption for Coen. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc. on the common-law negligence claim, granting dismissal. The denial of summary judgment for Julia Coen on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was affirmed, as triable issues of fact remained regarding her notice of a dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County
References
25
Case No. action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

U.W. Marx, Inc. v. Koko Contracting, Inc.

Koko Contracting, Inc., a subcontractor, ceased work on a school construction project after U.W. Marx, Inc., the general contractor, failed to make three successive progress payments. Marx declared Koko in default and terminated the contract. In action No. 2, the Supreme Court found in favor of Koko, ruling that Marx's failure to pay was a material breach of contract. Marx and its surety, Continental Casualty Company, appealed, arguing Koko's recovery was precluded by its failure to provide seven days' written notice before suspending work as required by the subcontract. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Marx's prior material breach relieved Koko from its obligation to strictly comply with the notice provision, as the clause was primarily for the subcontractor's benefit regarding remobilization costs.

Construction ContractMaterial BreachNonpaymentSubcontractorGeneral ContractorAppealNotice to CureSuspension of WorkContract PerformanceContractual Obligations
References
9
Case No. 10-19-00004-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2022

Texas Central Business Lines Corporation v. U.S. Polyco, Inc.

Texas Central Business Lines Corporation (TCB) and U.S. Polyco, Inc. (USP) entered into agreements for the construction of a plant and infrastructure, leading to a dispute over cost responsibilities and contract interpretation. USP sued TCB for breach of contract, and TCB counterclaimed. The trial court partially granted USP's motion for summary judgment on contract interpretation, and a jury subsequently found TCB in material breach, awarding USP substantial damages. On appeal, the Tenth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment, finding that the trial court erred by interpreting an ambiguous contract provision as a matter of law and by instructing the jury based on that erroneous interpretation. The appellate court concluded that the contract provision was ambiguous, necessitating a remand for a new trial to determine the parties' true intent.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentJury InstructionRailroad Allowance AgreementTransload AgreementInfrastructure ImprovementsAmbiguity in ContractCanons of Construction
References
40
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
Showing 1-10 of 5,016 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