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. 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

Celestino v. Mid-American Indemnity Insurance Co.

The case involves an appeal by the family members of Arturo Celestino, deceased, and Sebastian Cotton & Grain (collectively, the Celestinos) against Mid-American Indemnity Insurance (Mid-American) regarding a summary judgment. The Celestinos alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligence, and violations of the Insurance Code and DTPA, claiming Mid-American's umbrella policy, intended for employer's liability, provided no actual coverage due to extensive exclusions. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment concerning fraud, negligence, and DTPA § 17.46 violations, reasoning that the policy's plain language, including clear warnings and exclusions, negated claims of misrepresentation and duty to disclose. However, the court reversed and remanded the claims for breach of contract and unconscionability under DTPA § 17.50(a)(3), finding Mid-American failed to demonstrate the policy offered any employer's liability coverage under Texas law and noting potential repugnancy between the general coverage provision and its exclusions.

Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance Code ViolationsUnconscionabilityEmployer's Liability InsurancePolicy ExclusionsFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligence Claim
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fodge v. American Motorist Insurance Co.

Barbara Anne Fodge sued American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO) and Thom Gibson for breach of good faith and fair dealing, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations, and Texas Insurance Code violations, alleging delayed, underpaid, or denied medical benefits related to her workers' compensation claim. The trial court dismissed Fodge's claims by granting AMICO's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. Fodge appealed, arguing that her 'bad faith' claims were independent of her workers' compensation claim and did not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (TWCC) for non-compensation related damages. The appellate court found that while claims for lost compensation benefits require administrative exhaustion, claims for damages caused by the purported misrepresentations and deceptive conduct unrelated to lost compensation benefits do not. The court concluded that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over Fodge's claims regarding breach of good faith, DTPA, and Insurance Code violations, reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBad FaithDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance CodePlea to JurisdictionMotion to DismissExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAppellate ReviewTexas LawMedical Benefits
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Traver v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

This appeal concerns a summary judgment granted in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Ronald Traver, executor of Mary Davidson's estate, sued State Farm following a previous jury verdict finding Davidson 100% negligent in a car accident, resulting in a $375,000 award to Mary Jordan, despite State Farm's offers of policy limits. Traver alleged State Farm breached its duty to defend, was negligent, breached good faith and fair dealing, and violated the Texas DTPA and Insurance Code. The court held that no Stowers duty to settle was triggered because Jordan's demands were not within Davidson's policy limits or scope of coverage, thus invalidating claims solely based on Stowers or bad faith in the third-party context. However, the court found that a simple negligence claim (malpractice) against State Farm for its retained counsel's conduct survived Davidson's death and raised genuine issues of material fact, which could also support DTPA and Insurance Code violations. The trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for trial on the negligence cause of action and related statutory violations.

Insurance LawBad FaithNegligenceLegal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate LawDuty to SettleTexas Insurance CodeDTPASurvivability of Action
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bekins Moving & Storage Co. v. Williams

Jean Williams sued Bekins Moving & Storage for damages sustained when her household belongings were damaged during a move, which Bekins had subcontracted. Williams alleged negligence, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and violations of the Texas Insurance Code, stemming from misrepresentations and inadequate handling of her claim. The jury found in favor of Williams on most claims. On appeal, the court reformed the judgment, eliminating recoveries for negligence and mental anguish, and striking treble damages under the Insurance Code. However, it affirmed the awards under the DTPA and the Insurance Code, along with attorney's fees, ultimately reducing the total monetary award but upholding Bekins' liability under multiple statutes.

Moving IndustryProperty LossConsumer ProtectionContract BreachStatute of LimitationsInsurance ClaimsWaiver DoctrineDamages CalculationAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil Practice
References
56
Case No. 2-09-265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. v. Shelby Jackson

Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. appealed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. The appellants contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish DTPA violations, economic damages, an unconscionable act by Norris, mental anguish damages, and entitlement to treble damages or attorney's fees. The trial court found that Avery violated the DTPA by misrepresenting rights and failing to disclose information, causing $500 in economic damages, which were trebled. It also found Norris committed an unconscionable act intentionally, causing $2,500 in mental anguish damages, also trebled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all findings.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActEconomic DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesContract ModificationConsumer ProtectionTexas Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Underwood

Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York appealed a judgment in favor of Archie H. Underwood d/b/a Lakeside Veterinary Clinic. Underwood sued Fidelity for breach of contract, DTPA, and Insurance Code violations after his new pickup truck was stolen, flood-damaged, and Fidelity's handling of his insurance claim. Fidelity initially deemed the truck a total loss, then repairable, tendering a low settlement. The jury found in favor of Underwood, awarding him damages and attorney fees. The appellate court reviewed Fidelity's points of error regarding evidence sufficiency and jury instructions, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of breach of contract and violations of the DTPA and Insurance Code, and that attorney fees were justified.

Insurance ClaimFlood DamagePickup TruckBreach of ContractDTPATexas Insurance CodeBad FaithMarket ValueActual Cash ValueTotal Loss
References
29
Case No. 04-24-00797-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride

Eunice Villanueva appealed a summary judgment favoring Structural Repair, LLC and other appellees, stemming from a dispute over foundation repair. An initial arbitration between Villanueva and Advanced Foundation Repair, L.P. resulted in an award for Villanueva on a DTPA violation, which was subsequently confirmed by the trial court. Villanueva then sued the appellees, who were related to Advanced Foundation, asserting similar claims of fraud and DTPA violations. The appellees successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing res judicata based on the prior arbitration. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the arbitration award constituted a final judgment, the appellees were in privity with Advanced Foundation, and the claims were identical to those previously litigated, thus satisfying all elements of res judicata. The court also clarified that Villanueva's attempt to pierce the corporate veil did not introduce a new substantive claim precluding summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentAppealRes JudicataArbitration AwardPrivityCorporate VeilTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActFoundation RepairFraudCivil Procedure
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kathryne Vause v. Liberty Insurance Corporation and Justin A. Smith

Kathryn Vause appealed a summary judgment in favor of Liberty Insurance Corp. and Justin A. Smith. Vause had sued the appellees for violations of the Texas Insurance Code, Texas Labor Code, and the DTPA, stemming from the denial of her workers' compensation claim for a knee injury sustained at work. Liberty initially denied her claim, citing a lack of objective evidence for a work-related injury, even after her physician requested surgery preauthorization. A Contested Case Hearing subsequently found Vause suffered a compensable injury and disability, ordering Liberty to pay benefits. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Vause failed to provide sufficient evidence for Insurance Code violations, and that her Labor Code and DTPA claims were barred by the exclusive remedies provided within the Workers' Compensation Act for issues like investigation failures and delayed benefits.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentInsurance Code ViolationsLabor Code ViolationsDTPAClaim DenialCompensabilityDisability BenefitsMedical BenefitsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 7,387 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