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. 14-15-00614-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2015

Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc.

This case concerns an objection filed by Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. to a mediation order issued by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. Berkel argues that the mediation for Appellant Maxim Crane Works, L.P.'s appeal regarding indemnity and defense costs is premature. This appeal stems from a prior trial where Berkel was found 90% responsible and Maxim 10% responsible for a construction accident, resulting in a $43 million judgment. Maxim settled its portion with the plaintiffs and is pursuing indemnity and breach of contract claims against Berkel. The core legal dispute involves the interpretation and application of Chapter 151 of the Texas Insurance Code, specifically concerning anti-indemnity provisions and the exception for employee claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, which impacts Berkel's potential liability for Maxim's defense and indemnity costs.

Construction LawIndemnity ClaimsTexas Insurance CodeWorkers' Compensation ActAppellate ProcedureMediation ObjectionBreach of ContractNegligence LiabilityDefense CostsFinal Judgment Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Ammean

Richard J. Ammean sued Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. (Texas Contractors) and Bayer Corporation for a back injury sustained at work. Ammean, an employee of Texas Contractors working on Bayer's premises, had previously received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Contractors' insurer. The appellate court reversed the judgment against Texas Contractors, ruling Ammean's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act due to his receipt of benefits. However, the court affirmed the judgment against Bayer, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Bayer's negligence, through its supervisory control and its employee forklift driver, proximately caused Ammean's injury. The court also upheld the jury's damage award for future loss of earning capacity against Bayer.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy ProvisionNegligenceBorrowed Servant DoctrinePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsLoss of Earning CapacityEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

North Country Insurance v. Jandreau

This appeal concerns an insurer's motion for summary judgment, seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify a general contractor in a personal injury lawsuit. The underlying action arose when an employee of a roofing subcontractor fell from a roof on a construction site. The insurer disclaimed coverage, alleging the general contractor failed to provide timely notice of the occurrence as per the policy. However, the general contractor claimed a good-faith belief of non-liability, citing the subcontractor's responsibility, notification to the subcontractor's insurer, and the injured worker's disregard for instructions not to access the roof. The Supreme Court denied the insurer's motion, determining that the reasonableness of the general contractor's delayed notice was a factual question suitable for a jury, a decision which the appellate court affirmed.

Insurance CoverageTimely NoticeSummary JudgmentGood-Faith Belief of NonliabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityDuty to DefendDuty to Indemnify
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diocese of Rochester v. R-Monde Contractors, Inc.

This case addresses whether an architect, allegedly failing to make adequate periodic inspections and learn of defects, is immune from liability due to a contract provision disclaiming responsibility for the contractor's acts. Plaintiffs, the Diocese of Rochester and St. Theodore’s Church, sued their architect, Starks Wurzer Patterson Romeo Architects, P.C., and others after a fire caused by faulty insulation installation. The architect moved for summary judgment, arguing their contract absolved them of supervisory duties and responsibility for the contractor's methods. The court denied the architect's motion for summary judgment, except for the breach of warranty claims (which were dismissed), holding that the exculpatory clause did not immunize the architect from liability for breaches of its own contractual duties to inspect and inform the owner, rejecting the argument that lack of knowledge due to insufficient inspection could be a defense.

architect liabilitysummary judgment motionbreach of contractnegligenceexculpatory clauseconstruction defectsfire damageinsulation installationduty to inspectcontract interpretation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russgood Construction Co. v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal from a judgment regarding a construction contract with an indemnification provision. The plaintiffs, a contractor, had an agreement with the City of New York to hold the city harmless for claims related to the work. An engineer for the city suffered a heart attack while inspecting the work and successfully filed a Workers' Compensation claim. The City then withheld final payment to the contractor, claiming the contractor was responsible under the indemnity clause for the Workers' Compensation award. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the contractor, but the appellate court reversed, finding the indemnification agreement clear and unambiguous in covering all claims connected to the work. The case was remanded to the trial court for a new hearing to actuarially compute the unliquidated amounts due, allowing all parties to present evidence.

Indemnification ClauseConstruction ContractWorkers' CompensationHeart AttackPre-existing ConditionAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationRemandActuarial ComputationLiability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2000

Rosenberg v. Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc.

Robert Rosenberg, an employee of an alarm company, was allegedly injured after tripping over cardboard at a construction site. He and his wife sued Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc. (the general contractor) and Dave Mims Fifth Generation Painting Contractors (a subcontractor) under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Mims but denied Krupinski's motion for similar relief. On appeal, the order was modified; Krupinski's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim was granted, as Krupinski established it had no authority to control the activity causing the injury. However, the motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly denied due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the accident occurred in a passageway or work area and whether specific regulations (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) or (2)) were violated, and whether Krupinski was still the general contractor at the time of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafe Place to WorkAppellate DivisionTriable Issue of FactLabor Law CompliancePremises LiabilitySubcontractor
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. v. Lytle

Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. appealed a Circuit Court judgment that granted workmen's compensation and medical expenses to Allen B. Lytle. The core issue was whether Lytle, a brick washer, was an employee or an independent contractor when he suffered an injury due to a scaffold collapse. The trial court deemed Lytle an employee, citing the defendant's right to control and terminate. However, the appellate court applied multiple tests, including control over work, method of payment (per job/thousand bricks), and who furnished tools and helpers. The Supreme Court found that Lytle largely operated independently, supplying his materials and labor, with limited supervision from Cromwell. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, classifying Lytle as an independent contractor, and dismissed the compensation claim.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusScaffold AccidentBrick CleaningControl TestRight of TerminationMethod of PaymentFurnishing ToolsTennessee Law
References
7
Case No. 2015-02-0283
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2016

Hartley, Kevin v. Allen Hammons (General Contractor)

Kevin Hartley filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking workers' compensation benefits against Alan Hammons, a general contractor, after sustaining serious injuries from a fall on a job site. Hartley argued he was an employee of Brian Glover, a brick mason contracted by Hammons, and thus Hammons' insurance carrier should be responsible due to Glover lacking workers' compensation insurance. Hammons and Glover contended Hartley was an independent contractor. The Court, weighing statutory factors and case law, found Hartley to be an independent contractor and denied his claim for temporary disability and medical benefits.

Independent ContractorEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsConstruction AccidentExpedited HearingLabor LawStatutory InterpretationBurden of ProofTennessee LawGeneral Contractor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh

Billy McIntosh sustained a severe hand injury while operating a power roller machine at Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana, triggering a statutory presumption under Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Act that his drug use proximately caused the injury. The trial court, however, found that McIntosh successfully rebutted this presumption, concluding that the injury was proximately caused by an inexperienced coworker engaging the machine, not McIntosh's impaired reaction time. Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. appealed this decision, arguing the trial court erred in its application of the statutory presumption and causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding that McIntosh had successfully rebutted the presumption.

References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,319 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