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. 13-17-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

H & H Sand and Gravel, Inc., a Texas Corporation v. Suntide Sandpit, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Mike Hurst, Individually, Phil Hurst, Individually, and Erma Stillwell

H & H Sand and Gravel, Inc. (Appellant) sued Suntide Sandpit, Inc., Mike Hurst, Phil Hurst, and Erma Stillwell (Appellees) for contractual damages. H & H was awarded damages against Suntide and Stillwell, but not against Mike and Phil. H & H appealed three issues: the trial court's alleged errors in failing to instruct the jury on the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act, spoliation of evidence, and piercing the corporate veil; failure to enforce a discovery order and grant death penalty sanctions; and failure to award contingent appellate attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions, the denial of death penalty sanctions, and declining to award contingent appellate attorney's fees as H & H did not prevail on appeal.

Contractual DamagesConstruction Trust Fund ActSpoliation of EvidencePiercing the Corporate VeilJury InstructionsDiscovery SanctionsMonetary SanctionsAppellate Attorney's FeesCommercial LawCorporate Law
References
34
Case No. Bankruptcy No. 04-16354-CAG. Adversary No. 06-1283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2009

In Re Smtc Mfg. of Texas

This case involves a Chapter 7 Trustee's adversary proceeding against the debtor, SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of Texas, and its affiliates, alleging fraudulent transfers and seeking to pierce the corporate veil. The Trustee claimed four categories of fraudulent transfers (intercompany, expense reallocations, net balance, and fixed asset transfers) were made to insiders with intent to defraud creditors, particularly Flextronics, the debtor's lessor. The court determined that transfers made on or after March 1, 2003, did not involve "assets" under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) because the property was fully encumbered by a valid lien. For transfers before this date, while the debtor was insolvent, the Trustee failed to prove actual intent to defraud or lack of reasonably equivalent value. Additionally, the court rejected the veil-piercing claims, finding the debtor's operations sufficiently independent and no evidence of reliance by Flextronics on the parent company's financial backing. The court granted the Defendants' motion for a take-nothing judgment against the Trustee.

BankruptcyChapter 7Fraudulent TransferTexas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA)Corporate Veil PiercingAlter EgoSham to Perpetrate FraudSubsidiary LiabilitySecured TransactionsLien
References
88
Case No. M2021-01504-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2025

Charles Youree, Jr. v. Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC

Charles Youree, Jr. filed a lawsuit against Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC (RHET) and RHT Holdings, LLC, seeking to pierce the corporate veil to hold them liable for a prior default judgment obtained against Recovery Solutions Network, LLC (RSN). The trial court initially granted a default judgment, applying the 'Allen factors'. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 'Continental Bankers elements' were the correct framework for piercing the corporate veil. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, clarifying that the three Continental Bankers elements provide the correct standard in all corporate veil-piercing contexts, while the Allen factors are merely relevant circumstances. The Supreme Court found the complaint failed to sufficiently plead the 'fraud or wrong' and 'causation' elements, thus failing to articulate a claim for piercing the corporate veil. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Corporate Veil PiercingLimited LiabilityDefault JudgmentAppellate ReviewRule 59.04 MotionContinental Bankers ElementsAllen FactorsParent-Subsidiary LiabilityPleading StandardsCorporate Separateness
References
52
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06179 [221 AD3d 1382]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Pierce v. Archer Daniels Midland, Co.

Debra D. Pierce, as an individual and administrator of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed her claims against Archer Daniels Midland, Co. (ADM) and ADM Milling, Co. Her husband was fatally injured during employment, leading to claims including negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court had granted dismissal based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity, as Pierce had received workers' compensation benefits naming ADM Milling as the employer. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Pierce's direct claims against ADM Milling due to the finality of the Workers' Compensation Board decision. However, the Court reversed the dismissal of future cross-claims against ADM Milling, citing the grave injury exception allowing third-party actions. Additionally, the dismissal of the complaint and cross-claims against ADM was reversed as premature, given unresolved factual issues regarding corporate control.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityGrave Injury ExceptionParent Corporation LiabilityMotion to DismissCollateral AttackJudicial EstoppelThird-Party ActionIndemnification and ContributionEmployment LawWrongful Death
References
18
Case No. 2-02-356-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2003

Randy Pierce, D/B/A Pierce Investments, D/B/A Apri Homes v. Kevin Dutton

This case involves an appeal of a default judgment against Randy Pierce (appellant) in a suit brought by Kevin Dutton (appellee) for negligent home construction. Pierce failed to answer Dutton's petition due to an unintentional miscommunication with his wife regarding delivering the legal papers to their attorney. After the default judgment was rendered, Pierce timely filed a motion for new trial, which was eventually denied by the trial court, leading to this appeal. The appellate court applied the Craddock test, finding that Pierce's failure to answer was accidental, he presented a meritorious defense, and a new trial would not unduly prejudice Dutton. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion, and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewNegligent ConstructionUnintentional Failure to AnswerMeritorious DefenseReversed and RemandedCivil Procedure
References
11
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Pierce

Erne-terio Corona, a minor, sustained a forearm injury while employed by non-subscriber Joe Pierce. The trial court initially awarded Corona $24,025 and assessed all costs against Pierce. The court of appeals later reduced the judgment and retaxed costs, assessing half against Corona and half against Pierce, a decision found contrary to Texas Rule 131. Consequently, a higher court granted the application for writ of error, modifying the appellate judgment to tax all trial court costs against Pierce, and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationRetaxing CostsAppellate ProcedureTrial Court CostsCivil ProcedureEmployer LiabilityNon-subscriberWrit of ErrorJudgment Modification
References
2
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. 13-02-415-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Daimlerchrysler Corporation (f/K/A Chrysler Corporation), Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler v. Bill L. Inman, David Castro and John Wilkins, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

This case involves an interlocutory appeal filed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation, challenging a trial court's certification of two nationwide classes. The plaintiffs are owners of DaimlerChrysler automobiles equipped with defective Gen-3 seatbelt buckles, alleging design defects leading to purely economic losses, but no physical injury or property damage. DaimlerChrysler contended the plaintiffs lacked standing under common-law torts, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) warranties. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the plaintiffs had standing, concluding they suffered a distinct, actual injury from insufficient product value, and that monetary damages would provide redress. However, the court reversed and remanded the class certification due to the trial court's failure to perform a proper choice-of-law analysis for nationwide claims.

Defective ProductsClass ActionStanding to SueEconomic LossSeatbelt DefectsTexas LawDTPAUCCBreach of WarrantyNegligence
References
96
Showing 1-10 of 3,712 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