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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Cullum Companies, Inc.

Dovie Irene Henry appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Cullum Companies, Inc. (Tom Thumb) in a slip-and-fall negligence case. Henry initially sought recovery under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), alleging misrepresentations about the safety of the store's floors. The trial court granted a partial summary judgment, ruling that premises liability cases were not within the purview of the DTPA. Henry subsequently removed the DTPA claims from her pleadings. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, distinguishing between services as the primary objective of a bargain and incidental services like the use of store floors, concluding that the latter do not fall under the DTPA's definition of services "furnished in connection with the sale of goods." Thus, Henry was not considered a "consumer" under the DTPA for her injury related to the store's floors.

Summary JudgmentDeceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer StatusPremises LiabilitySlip and FallGoods and ServicesIncidental UseTexas Business and Commerce CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Garza

Carmela Garza sued her insurer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, and adjuster Larry Hendrick, after her home was destroyed by arson. She alleged causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and knowing violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and the Insurance Code due to delayed payment and failure to provide policy documents. The jury found in Garza’s favor, awarding actual, punitive, and DTPA damages. On appeal, the court affirmed actual damages and DTPA liability but reversed the punitive damages award for lack of malice and rendered judgment against Hendrick individually, finding he owed no duty of good faith to Garza. The case was remanded for recalculation of DTPA additional damages and attorney's fees, specifically correcting for trebled prejudgment interest.

Arson InvestigationBad Faith Insurance ClaimDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance Code ViolationsPunitive DamagesActual DamagesUnconscionable ConductDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of Evidence
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Head v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc.

Jacqueline Head contracted with Affordable Inspections for a home inspection. She alleged that an unsupervised apprentice performed the inspection, failing to disclose significant water damage and structural defects. Head sued Affordable and John Fox (the inspector) under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, unconscionability, and breach of express warranty, as well as for breach of contract and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Affordable and Fox, applying the professional services exemption to DTPA claims and limiting liability for contract and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on DTPA claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and unconscionability, and upheld the limitation of liability for breach of contract and negligence. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Head's DTPA claim for breach of express warranty, finding a fact issue regarding the promise of a licensed inspector performing the inspection. Consequently, the award of attorneys' fees to Affordable and Fox was also reversed and remanded.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActProfessional Services ExemptionBreach of ContractNegligenceLimitation of LiabilityExpress WarrantySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Estate InspectionHome Inspector
References
50
Case No. 2-03-152-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Jacqueline C. Head, Individually and as Successor Trustee Under the FTW Living Trust v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc. F/K/A Affordable Inspections, Inc. and John Fox

Jacqueline Head appealed a summary judgment in favor of U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc. and John Fox. Head argued that her DTPA claims were wrongly barred by a professional services exemption, and a limitation of liability clause should not apply to her breach of contract and negligence claims. The Court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Head's DTPA claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and unconscionability, along with her negligence and breach of contract claims. However, the Court reversed the summary judgment concerning Head's claim for breach of express warranty under the DTPA and the award of attorneys' fees, remanding these specific issues to the trial court for further proceedings.

Real Estate InspectionSummary JudgmentDeceptive Trade Practices ActProfessional Services ExemptionLimitation of LiabilityBreach of ContractNegligenceExpress WarrantyUnconscionabilityAttorneys' Fees
References
52
Case No. 05-17-01318-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2019

CExchange, LLC v. Top Wireless Wholesaler

This case involves an appeal concerning the "as is" sale of used electronics between CExchange, LLC (seller) and Top Wireless Wholesaler (buyer). Top sued CExchange for breach of contract, express warranty, and deceptive trade practices (DTPA), alleging misrepresentation regarding the quality and grading of the merchandise. CExchange appealed a jury verdict in favor of Top, arguing the "as is" clause barred the claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, finding the "as is" clause unenforceable due to fraudulent inducement, upholding the jury's findings on express warranty and DTPA violations. However, the court reversed and remanded the DTPA claim and attorney's fees for a new trial to determine proportionate responsibility.

electronic resellersused merchandise salesas is contractfraudulent inducementdeceptive trade practicesexpress warranty breachcontract disputeappellate procedurejury verdict reviewproportionate responsibility
References
48
Case No. 01-05-00531-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2006

Steve Burditt v. Whataburger, Inc.

Steve Burditt appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Whataburger, Inc., concerning claims of false imprisonment, negligence, and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Burditt alleged he was detained by Whataburger staff after a $20 bill he used was suspected to be counterfeit, leading to his humiliation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on all counts. It found the shopkeeper's privilege justified the detention for false imprisonment. Furthermore, the court determined Burditt provided insufficient evidence of compensable mental anguish damages to support his negligence and DTPA claims, specifically lacking proof of "knowing conduct" required under the DTPA.

Summary JudgmentFalse ImprisonmentNegligenceDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Shopkeeper's PrivilegeMental Anguish DamagesNo-Evidence MotionTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Business and Commerce CodeAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 14-11-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2013

Patrick O'Brien Murphy AKA O'Brien Murphy and Beverly Murphy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and HSBC Bank USA

Patrick and Beverly Murphy appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and HSBC Bank USA, stemming from a defaulted home mortgage and alleged oral refinancing agreement. The Murphys had defaulted on their loan and property taxes, leading to foreclosure proceedings and their subsequent lawsuit against the banks for breach of contract, fraud, and DTPA violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the fraud and DTPA claims, finding the Murphys were not DTPA consumers and the conditional refinancing promise was too indefinite for fraud. However, the court reversed the personal award of attorney's fees against the Murphys, ruling the loan's nonrecourse nature prevented personal liability, and remanded that issue.

Home Mortgage LitigationLoan DefaultForeclosure ProceedingsSummary Judgment AppealNonrecourse DebtAttorney Fee DisputeFraud AllegationsDTPA ClaimsConsumer LawContractual Interpretation
References
34
Case No. 08-11-00092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2012

Business Staffing, Inc., Transglobal Indemnity Limited, Inc., Harry Sewill, Richard Gable Chapman, Bart Bogus, BSI Insurance Services, Inc., Transglobal Mortgage, Inc., and LHR Enterprises, Inc. v. Jackson Hot Oil Service D/B/A Jackson Brothers Hot Oil Service and Cody Jackson

This case involves an appeal from a final judgment against Business Staffing, Inc. (BSI) and related entities (Appellants) in favor of Jackson Hot Oil Service and individuals (Appellees). Appellees sued for breach of contract, DTPA violations, breach of good faith, negligence, and fraud, stemming from Appellants' alleged failure to provide workers' compensation insurance. The jury found Appellants engaged in unconscionable and deceptive acts and committed fraud, particularly against Cody Jackson, who suffered severe burns in an on-the-job accident. The appellate court affirmed most of the jury's findings, including those on statute of limitations, DTPA violations, and fraud, but reformed the judgment to adjust the calculation of damages under the DTPA and reflect a remittitur for Jackson Brothers.

Workers' Compensation FraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance MisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil LawStatute of Limitations DefenseExemplary DamagesActual Damages
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galveston County Fair & Rodeo v. Kauffman

Travis Kauffman entered his steer "Reebok" in The Galveston County Fair and Rodeo steer show. After winning a class, the steer was later disqualified due to allegations of "airing," an unethical fitting practice. Daniel S. Kauffman, Jr., Travis's father, sued the Fair alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence. A jury found in favor of Kauffman on all claims, with recovery elected under the DTPA. The Fair appealed, challenging aspects of the jury charge, evidence sufficiency, damages, consumer status under DTPA, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but modified it by deleting a $1,500 damage award related to negligence.

DTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActNegligenceBreach of ContractSteer DisqualificationAnimal Show EthicsConsumer ProtectionAppellate ReviewDamagesMental Anguish
References
18
Case No. 01-06-00458-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2007

David C. Hickman v. Royce Dudensing

David Hickman appealed an adverse take-nothing judgment on a jury verdict in a construction-defect case against Royce Dudensing. Hickman sued Dudensing for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) and breach of contract, alleging that Dudensing failed to remodel Hickman’s residence in a good and workmanlike manner. The trial court instructed a verdict on the DTPA claims based on limitations but allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed. The jury found that Dudensing did not fail to comply with his contract obligations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict and concluding that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict on the DTPA claims due to the statute of limitations.

Construction defectBreach of contractDeceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)Statute of limitationsLegal sufficiencyFactual sufficiencyQuasi-admissionsJudicial admissionsJury verdictAppellate review
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 165 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