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. 09-22-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Lexington Insurance Company v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation

This case from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal by Lexington Insurance Company against Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation. Lexington challenged a summary judgment that awarded Exxon $25 million under an umbrella insurance policy. The dispute centered on whether Exxon qualified as an additional insured under a policy issued to Brock Services, LTD, and if specific policy exclusions for workers' compensation and employer's liability applied. The court affirmed the arbitration finding that Exxon was an additional insured but ultimately reversed the trial court's judgment. It ruled that the employer's liability exclusion applied, given Exxon's status as a statutory employer of Brock's injured employees through its Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP), thus entitling Exxon to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Consequently, Lexington was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Exxon, and the awards for damages, attorney's fees, and interest were reversed.

Insurance Policy CoverageUmbrella InsuranceWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer's Liability ExclusionExclusive RemedyOCIPStatutory EmployerAdditional Insured StatusArbitration ReviewSummary Judgment Reversal
References
33
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. 01-19-00852-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2021

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

This case involves two related appeals concerning insurance coverage for bodily injury claims against Exxon Mobil Corporation by its contractor's employees, Kevin Roberts and Arturo Munoz. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. challenged a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Exxon and Starr Indemnity and Liability Insurance Company, arguing its umbrella policy did not provide coverage beyond its CGL policy, as dictated by the Exxon-Savage Contract. Exxon also challenged a summary judgment favoring Starr. The appeals court reversed the judgment against National Union, finding that 'Commercial General Liability insurance' in the contract referred only to primary coverage, not umbrella or excess policies. Consequently, Exxon was not entitled to coverage under National Union's umbrella policy. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Starr, as its bumbershoot policy was also considered an umbrella policy. The case was remanded for reconsideration of attorney's fees and costs.

Insurance Policy InterpretationCommercial General LiabilityUmbrella Liability InsuranceExcess Liability InsuranceAdditional Insured EndorsementSummary Judgment ReviewBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury Claims
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coffey v. Singer Asset Finance Co., LLC

Appellants Rebecca Coffey, Angela Douglas, Donna Kisor, and Elizabeth Wallace appealed summary judgments dismissing their claims against Singer Asset Finance Company, Settlement Capital Corporation, and Merrick Bank Corporation. Appellants had previously settled personal injury lawsuits, receiving structured payments, and later took loans from appellees, using their future settlement payments as collateral. They sought to void these security interests, arguing they were prohibited by the insurance code, structured settlement documents, and public policy, contending the pledges constituted unlawful assignments or commutations. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the loan transactions created security interests, not assignments or commutations, and were thus permitted under the insurance code. Furthermore, the court found that the appellants had either waived or were estopped from asserting anti-assignment provisions in their original settlement agreements, and that these transactions did not violate public policy.

Structured SettlementsSecurity InterestsAnti-Assignment ClausesWaiverEstoppelPublic PolicyAnnuity ContractsInsurance CodeTexas LawLoan Agreements
References
15
Case No. 03-00-00287-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2000

Helen F. Castellow v. Swiftex Manufacturing Corporation, Individually and D/B/A Swiftex, Inc.

Appellant Helen F. Castellow sued her employer, Swiftex Manufacturing Corporation, for negligence after an on-the-job injury. Swiftex, a nonsubscriber to workers' compensation insurance, offered a private benefit plan that required employees to waive common-law negligence remedies. Castellow, after being injured and receiving benefits under the plan, filed a lawsuit, ignoring the waiver. The trial court granted Swiftex's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Castellow argued the waiver violated public policy. The appellate court held that the waiver was void as against public policy because it thwarted the legislative intent of the Workers' Compensation Act by offering fewer benefits and greater employer immunity than the statutory scheme. The court therefore reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPublic PolicyWaiver EnforceabilityEmployer NegligencePrivate Benefit PlanCommon-Law RemediesSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewStatutory ConstructionOpen Courts Doctrine
References
35
Case No. 03-05-00034-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2007

Thomas O. Bennett, Jr. and James B. Bonham Corporation v. Randy Reynolds

This case involves an appeal by Thomas O. Bennett, Jr. and James B. Bonham Corporation against a judgment favoring Randy Reynolds. The jury found that Bennett, as president of Bonham Corporation, and the corporation itself, converted 13 of Reynolds's cattle, acted with malice, and committed felony theft, resulting in $5,327.11 in actual damages. Punitive damages of $250,000 against Bennett and $1 million against Bonham Corporation were also awarded. Appellants challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and argued that the punitive damages violated due process limitations due to their high ratio to actual damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's findings of cattle conversion, theft, and malice, and that the punitive awards, considering the extreme reprehensibility of the appellants' conduct including cover-up attempts and witness tampering, did not violate due process.

Cattle ConversionFelony TheftPunitive DamagesDue Process ChallengeMaliceAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceCover-upWitness TamperingEconomic Damages
References
44
Case No. 2020-07-0026
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2020

Dennison, Robert v. Packaging Corporation of America

Employee Robert G. Dennison sustained severe crush injuries while working under mechanical equipment that engaged unexpectedly. The employer, Packaging Corporation of America, initially provided benefits but later denied the claim, asserting willful violation of a safety rule based on the employee's failure to comply with its lockout/tagout policy. The employee acknowledged the rule and its violation but argued the employer did not genuinely enforce the policy and that he had a valid excuse. The trial court found the employer established bona fide enforcement and the employee lacked a valid excuse, denying benefits. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer consistently enforced its policy and the employee did not have a valid excuse for his actions, and remanded the case.

Workers' Compensation AppealsWorkplace InjurySafety Rule ViolationLockout/Tagout PolicyWillful MisconductAffirmative DefenseBona Fide EnforcementMedical Benefits DenialTemporary Disability BenefitsEmployee Termination
References
5
Case No. 10-07-00148-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2008

Roger Willis v. Nucor Corporation

Roger Willis sued his former employer, Nucor Corporation, alleging retaliatory discharge after filing a worker's compensation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Nucor, prompting Willis to appeal. The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the summary judgment. Nucor successfully demonstrated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Willis's termination, citing a history of safety violations and a last-chance warning. Willis attempted to prove retaliatory motive through circumstantial evidence, including Nucor's knowledge of the claim, alleged negative attitudes towards injuries, failure to adhere to company policies, disparate treatment, and the falsity of Nucor's stated reason. However, the appellate court found no genuine issue of material fact supporting Willis's claim of retaliatory motive and affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationSummary Judgment AppealEmployment LawTexas Court of AppealsCausal ConnectionSafety PolicyPretextDisparate TreatmentCircumstantial Evidence
References
34
Case No. 01-18-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Shakeel Uddin v. Jacqueline K. Cunningham Deputy Receiver of Southern Title Insurance Corporation and Southern Title Insurance Corporation

Appellant Shakeel Uddin appealed a summary judgment granted to Southern Title Insurance Corporation (STIC). Uddin had guaranteed a loan to Nabeel & Amaan Investments, Inc. (NAI), which defaulted, leading to a claim by the lender, Sterling Bank, under a title insurance policy issued by STIC. After paying Sterling and being assigned the loan rights, STIC sued Uddin directly on the guaranty. Uddin argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that he had raised material issues of fact on his affirmative defenses. The First District Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the statute of limitations was not jurisdictional, STIC's capacity issue was cured by the relation-back doctrine, STIC established its claim, and Uddin had contractually waived his other affirmative defenses.

Guaranty AgreementLoan DefaultTitle InsuranceSubrogationStatute of LimitationsStandingCapacityRelation-Back DoctrineContractual WaiverAffirmative Defenses
References
19
Case No. 14-09-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2009

in Re Investment Capital Corporation and Service Corporation International

Relators Investment Capital Corporation (ICC) and Service Corporation International (SCI) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Kathleen Stone of Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County to grant leave to designate SCI Funeral & Cemetary Purchasing Cooperative, Inc. as a responsible third party in a wrongful death suit. The underlying suit was initiated by the widow of Harold Israel, who suffered fatal injuries after falling in a parking garage. The trial court denied the relators' motion to designate SCI Funeral as a responsible third party. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the relators had an adequate remedy at law and that the case did not present the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify mandamus relief, distinguishing it from precedent such as In re Arthur Andersen.

Mandamus ReliefResponsible Third Party DesignationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate RemedyWrongful Death SuitNegligence ClaimsGross NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 12,026 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