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. MDL-1446; Civil Action Nos. H-01-3624, H-02-4788 (COORDINATED)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2007

In Re Enron Corporation Securities, Derivative

This multidistrict litigation involves claims against the Outside Directors of Enron Corporation following its collapse. Plaintiffs, including various Ohio Retirement Systems, alleged negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting common law fraud, and violations of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Outside Directors sought to dismiss all claims, arguing that Rule 9(b) heightened pleading standards applied and that claims were time-barred. The court granted dismissal for the aiding and abetting common law fraud claims but denied it for Section 18 and negligent misrepresentation, providing plaintiffs 30 days to amend their pleadings to meet particularity requirements for actual reliance and fraudulent intent, given the complexity of the alleged fraud. The court also clarified that outside directors who signed SEC-filed documents containing misrepresentations may be liable under Section 18.

Securities FraudNegligent MisrepresentationAiding and AbettingRule 9(b) PleadingPSLRASection 18 LiabilityOutside Director LiabilityStatute of LimitationsInquiry NoticeCorporate Governance
References
118
Case No. CCAC [# 139]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2010

In Re Arthrocare Corporation Securities Litigation

This is a consolidated securities class action suit against ArthroCare Corporation, its executives, and auditor PwC. The suit arose from a restatement of earnings from 2004-2008 due to alleged fraudulent practices related to insurance billing, healthcare compliance (DiscoCare and DRS models, upcoding, inflated prices), and improper revenue recognition. Lead Plaintiff DeKalb County Pension Fund alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply. Motions to dismiss by ArthroCare, Michael Baker, and Michael Gluk were granted in part and denied in part, based on a strong inference of scienter for actions taken after December 11, 2007. Motions to dismiss by David Applegate, John T. Raffle (control person claims), and PriceWaterhouseCooper (auditor) were granted due to insufficient pleading of control or scienter.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissScienterLoss CausationCorporate AccountingFinancial RestatementGAAP ViolationsGAAS StandardsInternal Controls
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security Insurance

The case examines if an insurer's breach of the duty to defend obligates it to indemnify the insured for a settlement, even when coverage is contested. Plaintiff Servidone Construction Corporation, an insured, settled an underlying claim after its insurer, Security Insurance Company, withdrew defense citing a policy exclusion. The lower courts ruled that Security was liable to indemnify Servidone due to its breach and the possibility of coverage. The Court of Appeals reversed, asserting that a duty to indemnify only arises from an actual covered loss, not merely from a breach of the duty to defend. It placed the burden on the insurer to prove the loss was not covered and remitted the case for further proceedings to determine actual policy coverage.

Duty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractInsurance LawSettlement AgreementCoverage DisputeWorkers' CompensationFederal Tort Claims ActCommon Law IndemnityContractual Indemnity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. Summit Security Services Inc.

The plaintiff, a security guard, brought a retaliation claim under Labor Law § 215 against his former employer, Summit Security Services Inc., and alleged co-employers, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Kirk Leon. Plaintiff alleged termination resulted from a complaint about underpayment by a prior employer. HHC and Leon moved to dismiss, arguing no right of action, while Summit argued it was not the employer at the time of the protected activity. The court denied HHC and Leon's motion, concluding HHC could be considered 'any other person' under the expanded Wage Theft Prevention Act and was not exempt as a political subdivision. Summit's motion to dismiss was granted, as the court found Labor Law § 215 applied only to employers at the time of the protected activity, and the WTPA did not explicitly extend liability to subsequent employers.

RetaliationLabor Law Section 215Wage Theft Prevention ActWTPAEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissPrevailing WageSecurity IndustryCo-employer Liability
References
16
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
Case No. 13-09-00536-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2011

Ernest Belmarez, Eddie Guajardo, William Phillips, Chris Shannon, Ramico Ramos, and Norma Mayorga v. Formosa Plastics Corporation Texas, Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.

This appeal stems from a personal injury lawsuit following a fire and explosions at Formosa Plastics Corporation's plant in Point Comfort, Texas, on October 6, 2005. Appellants, including Ernest Belmarez and five others, who were not Formosa employees but worked at the plant, claimed injuries while evacuating and sued Formosa, a forklift operator, and several contractors. After a jury returned a take-nothing verdict, the plaintiffs appealed, raising five issues. These issues primarily contested the trial court's exclusion of a Taproot Incident Report, OSHA citations, and Social Security disability findings, and the admission of evidence concerning their failure to file workers' compensation claims, along with arguments regarding counsel's conduct. The Thirteenth District Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in its evidentiary rulings or the jury arguments.

Personal InjuryIndustrial AccidentPlant FireExplosionsEvidentiary RulingsSubsequent Remedial MeasuresOSHA CitationsSocial Security DisabilityJury ArgumentAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1979

Lagzdins v. United Welfare Fund-Security Division Marriott Corp.

Plaintiffs John Lagzdins and Peter Akmens, carpenters employed by Paris R. Minuto Corp., sustained injuries when roof trusses collapsed during the construction of a "Roy Rogers Restaurant." The defendants, comprising the property owner (United Welfare Fund-Security Division Mariott Corporation) and the general contractor (Dominick Fieni & Sons), appealed judgments that found them liable for damages and dismissed their third-party complaint against Minuto Corp. The initial jury trial considered theories of common-law negligence (Labor Law § 200), breach of Labor Law § 240, and breach of Labor Law § 241(6). The appellate court reversed the amended judgment, vacated the interlocutory judgment, and ordered a new trial on liability for all parties. This decision was based on erroneous jury instructions concerning Labor Law § 200, an improper res ipsa loquitur instruction, and the incorrect dismissal of the third-party complaint. The court also clarified that contributory negligence does not bar recovery under Labor Law § 240 and affirmed that truss bracing falls within the statute's scope. Damages were held in abeyance pending the outcome of the new trial.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentRoof CollapseLabor Law ViolationsNegligenceThird-Party ActionJury InstructionsNew Trial GrantedAppellate ReviewSafe Place to Work
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Oxford Capital Securities, Inc.

The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an action on February 6, 1992, against Oxford Capital Securities, Inc., Oxford Consolidated Corporation, and several individuals for alleged fraudulent offer and sale of unregistered debt securities. The court issued an order for a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and accountings. Defendants consented to permanent injunctions but failed to provide complete accountings. The Commission moved to hold defendants in civil contempt. The court found defendants in contempt, ruling that Fifth Amendment privilege was waived by individuals who consented to the judgments and does not apply to corporate entities or their officers acting in a representative capacity. Sanctions are deferred for 45 days, allowing defendants to comply with the order.

Securities fraudCivil contemptFifth Amendment privilegeCorporate recordsAsset freezeAccountingInjunctionCorporate officersWaiver of privilegeFederal securities laws
References
21
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
Showing 1-10 of 5,577 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