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. 03-11-00327-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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sun Fab Industrial Contracting, Inc. v. Eric Lujan

The case involves an employer, Sun Fab Industrial Contracting, Inc., appealing the denial of its motion to compel arbitration in an employee-discrimination lawsuit filed by former employee Eric Lujan. Lujan alleged wrongful termination after filing a worker's compensation claim. The core dispute was whether the arbitration agreement, though included in an employee handbook that allowed for modification, was a separate, enforceable contract. The trial court initially denied arbitration, finding the agreement illusory due to the employer's right to unilaterally modify the handbook. On appeal, the court referenced *In re 24R, Inc.*, concluding that the arbitration agreement was a stand-alone document supported by mutual consideration and not subject to the handbook's modification clause. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationWorker's Compensation ClaimTexas LawContract EnforceabilityIllusory PromiseInterlocutory AppealEmployee HandbookFederal Arbitration ActMotion to Compel Arbitration
References
8
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

Millennium Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Brown & Root Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff Millennium Petrochemicals Inc. sought indemnification from Defendant Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. for asbestos-related injury lawsuits filed against Millennium by Brown & Root employees. The dispute centered on a 1961 contract, subsequently amended in 1973 and 1994, regarding indemnification provisions. Millennium argued that the 1973 amendment obligated Brown & Root to indemnify it for its own negligence. Brown & Root moved for summary judgment, asserting that its indemnification duty ceased upon the contract's termination in 1995. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Brown & Root, ruling that the indemnification obligation terminated with the contract. Furthermore, the court held that even if the obligation survived, the 1994 amendment applied, and it did not satisfy the 'express negligence rule' required under Texas law to indemnify a party for its own negligence.

Contract DisputeIndemnification AgreementSummary JudgmentAsbestos ExposureExpress Negligence RuleContract TerminationAccrual of ClaimsTexas LawDeclaratory JudgmentSuccessor in Interest
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lindsay ex rel. Lindsay v. South San Antonio Independent School District

In March 1996, the South San Antonio Independent School District terminated Ruth Lindsay's teaching contract. After the Commissioner of Education affirmed her termination, Lindsay committed suicide. Her brother, Sam, appealed the decision, but the district court dismissed the appeal due to Lindsay's death, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court examined whether a public school teacher's appeal of termination survives their death. The court concluded that despite the Education Code's silence on the matter, the claim, being analogous to a common law breach of contract action, is assignable and therefore survives the death of the claimant. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Public School TeacherTermination AppealSurvivability of ActionTexas Education CodeCommon Law PrinciplesBreach of ContractEstate ClaimJudicial ReviewRemandDistrict Court Dismissal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carney v. Sabine Contracting Corp.

Danny W. Carney, Sr. appealed a summary judgment that denied his wrongful termination suit against Sabine Contracting Corporation. Carney, initially employed by Hubco, Inc., was asked to complete employment packets for Sabine. He indicated previous workers' compensation benefits but did not submit a supplemental form and was later fired, allegedly due to his workers' compensation claim. Sabine sought summary judgment, arguing Carney was not its employee because his employment was not fully processed. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding that a written employment agreement between Carney and Sabine created a contractual relationship implying Sabine's right of control over Carney's work, thus presenting a genuine issue of material fact regarding his employment status.

Workers' CompensationWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealEmployer-Employee RelationshipRight of ControlContract InterpretationTexas Labor LawAppellate ProcedureMaterial Fact DisputeEmployment Agreement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farkas v. Rumore

Union members and plaintiff Lawrence Farkas brought an action against Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, and its president Anthony Rumore. Plaintiffs alleged unlawful ratification of a collective bargaining agreement by the union and employer participation in the misconduct, under the LMRDA and LMRA. Plaintiff Farkas also claimed wrongful discharge by the employer and mishandling of his termination arbitration by the union. The court denied summary judgment for the LMRDA claims against the union regarding contract ratification but granted it for the LMRDA claim against Anthony Rumore. Summary judgment was also granted to Coca-Cola on the LMRA ratification claim. Furthermore, Farkas's individual claims for duty of fair representation against the union and breach of collective bargaining agreement against Coca-Cola were dismissed due to his failure to exhaust contractual remedies.

Labor LawLMRDALMRAUnion RightsCollective BargainingContract RatificationDuty of Fair RepresentationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
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. 14-02-00627-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

Coastal Terminal Operators and James W. McPherson v. Essex Crane Rental Corp.

This case involves a breach-of-contract dispute where Essex Crane Rental Corp., an equipment lessor, secured summary judgment against Coastal Terminal Operators and its president, James W. McPherson, who was held liable under a personal guarantee. The appellate court upheld the trial court's interpretation of McPherson's guarantee agreement, deeming it unambiguous, and dismissed arguments concerning lack of consideration, mutual mistake, failure of condition precedent, and unconscionability. However, the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of attorney's fees awarded to Essex. Consequently, the appellate court reversed and remanded only the attorney's fees issue for further proceedings, affirming all other aspects of the trial court's judgment.

Breach of ContractPersonal GuaranteeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract AmbiguityLack of ConsiderationMutual MistakeCondition PrecedentUnconscionabilityAttorney's Fees
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 6,949 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