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. 01-02-01008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2003

Landmark Chevrolet, Corp. & Bill Heard Chevrolet, Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, 'the dealerships') against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company ('Universal'). The dealerships were sued in two underlying class-action lawsuits by customers alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud due to being charged a 'Consumer Services Fee' for a worthless coupon book. Universal, the dealerships' insurer, declined to defend them under their Statute and Title E&O (STEO) coverage, which only covered claims arising from violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws. Universal then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment in Universal’s favor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the 'eight-corners rule' and concluding that the underlying petitions did not allege facts indicating violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws, and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-Lending LawsTruth-in-Leasing LawsDeclaratory JudgmentClass Action LawsuitsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer Services FeeAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. 13-09-00128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Bill Head D/B/A Bill Head Enterprises and Titeflex Corporation

The case involves an appeal by Petroleum Solutions, Inc. (PSI) against Bill Head d/b/a Bill Head Enterprises (Head) and Titeflex, Inc., regarding a jury verdict stemming from a significant diesel fuel leak at Head's truck stop. PSI challenged trial court sanctions for spoliation of evidence, and findings related to Head's claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, as well as Titeflex's indemnification claims. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Head and Titeflex, finding sufficient evidence for PSI's breach of duties and product liability. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment interest.

Diesel leakUnderground storage tankEnvironmental regulationsSpoliation of evidenceFiduciary dutyBreach of contractFraudIndemnificationProduct liabilityAttorney's fees
References
153
Case No. 11-08-00110-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Great Western Drilling, Limited v. Bill Alexander

Great Western Drilling, Limited, appealed a take-nothing verdict in its suit against attorney Bill Alexander. Great Western claimed Alexander conspired with his client, Marilyn Paschal, to convert insurance proceeds that Great Western asserted were its equitable property, purchased with embezzled funds. The case stemmed from an earlier suit where Great Western sued Paschal for embezzlement and sought a constructive trust on the proceeds. The trial court severed claims against Alexander. At trial, the jury found that Alexander did not have notice that Great Western owned the insurance proceeds, leading to a verdict in Alexander's favor. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the jury's lack of notice finding was not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and any error regarding expert testimony was not reversible. Alexander's cross-appeal for sanctions was also denied.

ConversionInsurance ProceedsAttorney LiabilityFraudEmbezzlementNoticeJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceExpert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
34
Case No. 04-07-00859-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2009

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Bill Hibdon

This case concerns an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim where Pacific Employers Insurance Company (Pacific) contested the compensability of an injury claimed by Bill Hibdon. The core issue was whether Pacific had waived its right to contest compensability by allegedly failing to timely send notice of refusal to pay benefits to Hibdon, as required by the version of Texas Labor Code § 409.021(a) in effect at the time. The trial court affirmed an appeals panel decision, concluding Pacific had waived its right due to Hibdon's non-receipt of timely notice. However, citing Sw. Bell Tel. v. Mitchell, the appellate court determined that failure to send or receive notice within the statutory seven-day period does not constitute a waiver of the insurer's right to contest compensability. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Pacific, holding it did not waive its right.

Workers' CompensationWaiverInsurance CarrierNotice of RefusalCompensabilityTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentReversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landmark Chevrolet Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (the dealerships) against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Universal). The dealerships sought to overturn a judgment declaring that Universal had no duty to defend them in two underlying class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits, brought by customers, alleged violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud related to a 'Consumer Services Fee.' Universal denied coverage under the Statute and Title E&O (STEO) policy, arguing that the underlying petitions did not allege truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing violations as required by the policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in Universal's favor, upholding the application of the 'eight-corners' rule and declining to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-LendingTruth-in-LeasingDeceptive Trade Practices ActSummary JudgmentExtrinsic EvidenceAutomobile SalesClass Action
References
8
Case No. 14-22-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2023

Bill Wyly Development, Inc. and William Wyly v. Eron Smith and Hanna Smith

This case involves an appeal by Bill Wyly Development, Inc. and William Wyly against Eron and Hanna Smith. The Smiths had initially sued Wyly for trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress after declining to hire Wyly Development to build their home, leading to verbal threats and property damage. The trial court awarded the Smiths $32,500 in damages. On appeal, the court reversed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, concluding that Wyly's conduct was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous. However, the court affirmed the jury's award of $11,500 for trespass damages, finding the evidence factually sufficient. The motion for rehearing was denied.

Emotional DistressTrespass LawAppellate ProcedureDirected VerdictFactual SufficiencyContract DisputeProperty DamageVerbal ThreatsJury VerdictRehearing Denied
References
35
Case No. 03-99-00852-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2000

Shamrock Communications, Inc. D/B/A KJFK and Bill Simonson v. Debby Wilie

Debby Wilie sued Shamrock Communications, Inc. d/b/a/ KJFK and Bill Simonson for defamation and invasion of privacy following a radio broadcast discussing alleged events from her private birthday party. The jury found both defendants liable, awarding actual and exemplary damages. On appeal, Shamrock raised eight points of error, including claims regarding insufficient evidence for malice and mental anguish, defective jury questions, and erroneous admission of hearsay. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on malice and mental anguish, and no reversible error in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.

DefamationInvasion of PrivacyRadio BroadcastMaliceExemplary DamagesJury InstructionsMental AnguishHearsayAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
70
Case No. 07-03-0292-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

James L. Killion v. Chuck Lanehart, Successor & Independent of the Estate of Bill A. Davis

This case involves an appeal by James L. Killion challenging a trial court judgment in favor of Chuck Lanehart, the successor independent executor of Bill A. Davis's estate. The central dispute concerned the attorney's fee arrangement between Killion and the deceased attorney, Davis. Killion argued there was no written contingent fee agreement, rendering any such arrangement voidable. The jury found that the parties did not have a definite agreement on attorney's fees beyond an initial $5,000 retainer, and that Davis performed compensable work. Consequently, the jury awarded $40,000 based on quantum meruit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the absence of a clear fee agreement, the applicability of quantum meruit, and the reasonableness of the awarded fee.

Fee disputeAttorney feesContingent feeQuantum meruitContract disputeLegal sufficiencyFactual sufficiencyJury verdictImplied agreementTexas law
References
18
Case No. KP-0480
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2025

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0480

Enacted by House Bill 1763 and House Bill 1919, subchapter M and subchapter L of chapter 1369 of the Texas Insurance Code regulate certain contracts with pharmacists and pharmacies and certain referral and solicitation practices concerning affiliated providers. Under United States Supreme Court precedent, neither subchapter has an impermissible connection with ERISA plans as they do not dictate plan choices or add requirements to beneficiary status. The two subchapters also do not refer to ERISA plans as they neither exclusively apply to those plans nor are ERISA plans essential to the laws’ operation. Therefore, a court would likely conclude that ERISA does not preempt either subchapter. In addition, nothing in the language of either subchapter limits their applicability to plans domiciled in Texas. Thus, a court would likely conclude that both subchapters are enforceable against an issuer or PBM that satisfy the statutory definitions and administer a plan covering Texas residents or contracting with Texas pharmacy providers regardless of where the plan is domiciled.

ERISA PreemptionTexas Insurance CodePharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)Health Benefit PlansState Law EnforceabilityHouse Bill 1763House Bill 1919Regulatory CompliancePharmacy Reimbursement RatesReferral Practices
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 896 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