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

United States ex rel. Wall v. Circle C Construction, LLC

Relator Brian Wall and the United States (Plaintiffs) sued Circle C Construction, LLC (Defendant) for violations of the False Claims Act (FCA) related to federal contracts at Fort Campbell. Circle C knowingly submitted false payroll certifications, failing to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act's prevailing wage requirements for its electrical subcontractor, Phase Tech. After two appeals to the Sixth Circuit, the case was remanded to the District Court for recalculation of damages. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin H. Sharp, determined that Circle C's fraud tainted $259,298.18 of government payments for electrical work performed by Phase Tech on Kentucky-based buildings. Applying treble damages under the FCA and offsetting a settlement payment, the Court awarded Plaintiffs $762,894.54 in total damages.

False Claims ActDavis-Bacon ActGovernment Contract FraudWage ViolationsDamages RecalculationFederal Acquisition RegulationsSubcontractor LiabilityPrevailing WageTreble DamagesQui Tam
References
14
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. CA 14-02232
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2015

SVENSON, ERIC, MTR. OF

This case concerns an appeal from an order and judgment that partially vacated an arbitration award. Petitioners, Eric and Marcelle L. Svenson, and respondents, Richard B. Swegan and Debra A. Dinnocenzo, were involved in a property dispute over the removal of maple trees. An arbitrator awarded respondents treble and punitive damages for trespass. The Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, vacated the punitive damages but confirmed the rest of the award. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, rejecting petitioners' arguments that they were estopped from appealing, that the arbitrator misapplied RPAPL 861, and that treble damages were punitive. The court held that an arbitrator's factual and substantive law resolutions are generally not reviewable and that RPAPL 861 treble damages are not inherently punitive.

Arbitration AwardVacating ArbitrationPunitive DamagesTreble DamagesTrespass LawProperty Boundary DisputeAppellate Court DecisionCivil ProcedureReal Property LawJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vail v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.

Chief Justice Phillips dissents from the court's opinion awarding treble damages to the Vails against Texas Farm. The dissent argues that the Vails failed to properly plead their claims and obtain necessary jury findings. It challenges the court's interpretation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Insurance Code, asserting that prior common law rulings do not create per se statutory violations for unfair settlement practices. Furthermore, Phillips contends that the 1979 version of the DTPA, which makes treble damages discretionary, should apply, and the Vails' failure to secure a special issue on damages precludes such an award. The dissent concludes that incorporating mandatory treble damages from the Insurance Code into the DTPA is an untenable statutory interpretation, advocating for the court of appeals' original judgment.

Treble DamagesDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance CodeUnfair Settlement PracticesGood Faith and Fair DealingStatutory InterpretationPleading RequirementsJury FindingsDiscretionary DamagesMandatory Damages
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Co., LLC

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, argues against the permissibility of a class action concerning rent overcharges under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The core contention is that the treble damages stipulated in RSL § 26-516 (a) constitute a mandatory "penalty" as defined by CPLR 901 (b), which explicitly forbids class actions for statutory penalties unless specific authorization exists. The dissent asserts that any waiver of these treble damages by a class representative is nullified by Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.13, as such a waiver would undermine the legislative intent to deter excessive rents and contravene public policy. Furthermore, the opinion posits that such a waiver compromises the adequacy of the class representative, potentially disadvantaging class members who might possess significant claims for treble damages.

Class ActionPenaltyTreble DamagesRent Stabilization LawCPLR 901 (b)Waiver of RightsAdequacy of Class RepresentativePublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationRent Overcharge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Inc. v. Dal-Worth Tank

St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (St. Paul) appealed a judgment in favor of Dai-Worth Tank Co. (Dai-Worth) and Mission Butane Gas Co., raising fifty-six points of error concerning a "Mary Carter agreement," insufficient evidence, and damage awards. Dai-Worth cross-appealed for exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed many of the jury's findings, including St. Paul's negligence, breach of good faith, deceptive practices, and unconscionable actions, finding St. Paul had actual knowledge of the lawsuit and was estopped from denying coverage. However, the court reversed the award for future lost profits due to insufficient evidence, necessitating a recalculation of actual damages, treble damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees. The case was remanded to the trial court for these computations, upholding the principle that exemplary damages and statutory treble damages cannot both be recovered for the same acts.

Insurance LawAppellate ProcedureMary Carter AgreementDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Bad Faith InsuranceNegligenceBreach of ContractLost ProfitsDefault JudgmentAgency Law
References
104
Case No. E2013-02132-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2014

Cleveland Custom Stone v. Acuity Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal from a Chancery Court decision concerning an insurance dispute. Plaintiffs, Cleveland Custom Stone, Inc. and Steve's Stone Works, sued Acuity Mutual Insurance Company after it refused to pay insurance proceeds following a fire that destroyed their building. They alleged negligence, breach of contract, bad faith refusal to pay, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. A jury awarded compensatory damages and found a TCPA violation, but no punitive damages. The trial court affirmed the verdict, but did not treble the damages. Acuity appealed several issues, including the denial of summary judgment, directed verdict, and the jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient material evidence to support the jury's verdict and no error in the jury instructions or the denial of treble damages.

Insurance CoverageBreach of ContractNegligenceBad Faith Refusal to PayTennessee Consumer Protection ActAgency AgreementCertificate of InsuranceFire LossJury VerdictDirected Verdict
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2014

In re the Arbitration between Svenson & Swegan

This case involves an appeal by petitioners from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, which partially denied their application to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration arose from a dispute over the removal of maple trees from property owned by respondents, Richard B. Swegan and Debra A. Dinnocenzo, adjoining the petitioners' parcel. The arbitrator had initially found petitioners liable for trespass and violation of RPAPL 861, awarding treble damages and punitive damages. The Supreme Court subsequently modified the award by vacating the punitive damages provision but otherwise confirmed the award. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, rejecting petitioners' arguments concerning estoppel, misapplication of RPAPL 861, and the punitive nature of treble damages, while also upholding the calculation of interest and dismissing a contention regarding General Obligations Law § 15-108.

Arbitration AwardVacate ArbitrationPunitive DamagesTreble DamagesProperty DisputeTree RemovalTrespassRPAPL 861CPLR 7503Judicial Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1986

Property Owners Ass'n of Harbor Acres, Inc. v. Ying

The case concerns an appeal regarding property damage under RPAPL 861. Defendant James Ying engaged a contractor to clear land, despite being informed it belonged to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, found Ying liable, awarding $41,000 in damages, trebled due to his intentional actions. The court rejected the defendant's expert testimony on diminution of value for failing to consider tree loss. The appellate court modified the judgment to include prejudgment interest from July 16, 1979, and affirmed the modified judgment, confirming Ying's liability and the award of treble damages.

Property DamageTreble DamagesRPAPL 861Prejudgment InterestDiminution in ValueCost of RestorationTrespassIntentional TortNassau CountyAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,035 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