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

K. R. Playa VI, S. De R.L. De C v. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty De Mexico, S.A. De C v.

This case involves a consolidated appeal over title insurance claims for properties in Mexico. Appellants Citigroup Global Markets Realty Group and K.R. Playa VI challenged a trial court's judgment favoring appellees Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty de Mexico. The dispute centered on whether an exclusion in the title insurance policies, related to K.R. Playa's knowledge of a Mexican expropriation decree affecting the properties, precluded coverage and influenced the damages award. The jury found K.R. Playa knew of the decree for ten properties and awarded zero damages for the remaining six. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on K.R. Playa's knowledge and the zero damages, and addressing issues concerning expert testimony and state-law claims.

Title InsuranceReal Estate DisputeProperty ValuationBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodeExpropriation DecreeMexican LawInternational PropertyAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Stewart

Plaintiffs Kevin A. Ward, Sr. and Pamela Ward filed a wrongful death action after their son was killed in a sprint car race by defendant Anthony Wayne Stewart. Stewart removed the suit to federal court and asserted an indemnification counterclaim based on two liability releases. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing negligence claims were barred by the Releases or by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Plaintiffs opposed and cross-moved seeking dismissal of defendant's counterclaim for indemnification, arguing the Releases were inapplicable or unenforceable. A previous December 2017 Order invalidated the Releases and dismissed Stewart's counterclaim. Stewart then moved to certify certain portions of the December Order for interlocutory appeal or for partial final judgment, which the court denied. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting immediate appeal concerning the releases or the assumption-of-risk defense, and no just reason for delay for partial final judgment, concluding that the motion for certification and/or entry of partial final judgment is denied.

Wrongful Death ActionSprint Car RacingLiability ReleasesAssumption of RiskInterlocutory AppealPartial Final JudgmentFederal Civil ProcedureNew York General Obligations LawNegligence ClaimsIndemnification Counterclaim
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart v. Littlefield

C. Paul Stewart, a maintenance person, filed a worker's compensation claim after being injured on the job. Subsequently, John C. Littlefield, an officer of Stewart's employer, Countryside Village Homeowners’ Association, eliminated Stewart's position. Stewart sued Littlefield, Countryside, and Logan Properties, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge under former article 8307c of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes. Littlefield moved for summary judgment, arguing he was not Stewart's employer and thus not liable under the statute, which he contended applies only to employers. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Littlefield. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the term "person" in article 8307c refers exclusively to employers, thereby absolving Littlefield, who acted as an individual officer rather than Stewart's employer.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeCorporate Officer LiabilityDiscriminationLegislative IntentWorkmen's Compensation Act
References
8
Case No. 01-11-01032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2013

Stewart & Stevenson, LLC v. Brady Foret

Brady Foret sued Stewart & Stevenson, LLC for negligence after an oil drilling rig (Rig 65), which had been refurbished by Stewart & Stevenson, collapsed, causing Foret to fall over eighty feet and suffer severe injuries including orthopedic injuries and a traumatic brain injury. A jury found both Stewart & Stevenson (85%) and Key Energy Services, LLC (15%) negligent and awarded Foret substantial damages for past and future pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, and lost earning capacity. Stewart & Stevenson appealed, challenging the trial court's decision not to include Apache Corporation and Robert McLemore as responsible third parties in the jury charge, the excessiveness of the future damages awards, and the admission of late-filed discovery evidence. The First District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's negligence and damage findings, and no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of third parties or admission of evidence.

NegligencePersonal InjuryOil Rig CollapseTraumatic Brain InjurySpinal Cord InjuryLost Earning CapacityMental AnguishPhysical ImpairmentJury VerdictDamages
References
62
Case No. 13-10-00554-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2012

Commerce & Industry Insurance Company v. Kimberly Ferguson-Stewart

This case addresses whether a death resulting from an overdose of prescribed pain medication for an on-the-job injury is compensable by worker's compensation. Bruce Mason Stewart was injured at work and prescribed hydrocodone. He later died from a hydrocodone overdose. His widow, Kimberly Ferguson-Stewart, sought death benefits, which were initially denied by the Division of Worker's Compensation. A jury later found Stewart's death compensable, attributing the overdose to disorientation and memory loss caused by medication side effects rather than intentional non-compliance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Stewart's death was not solely caused by his intentional or knowing failure to comply with his doctor's instructions.

Workers' CompensationOverdose DeathCompensable InjuryMedical TreatmentPhysician InstructionsCausationAccidental OverdoseHydrocodone ToxicityDisorientationMemory Loss
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. McReynolds

Stewart Title Guaranty Company initiated an action in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, seeking a refund for risk rate and retaliatory taxes levied by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. The chancellor dismissed the claim, ruling that the Tennessee Claims Commission held exclusive jurisdiction over tax refund cases. On appeal, Stewart Title challenged this decision, contending that relevant statutes did not confer jurisdiction to the commission for such claims and that the state constitution mandated review of tax assessments by constitutionally established courts. The appellate court affirmed the chancellor's judgment, interpreting the claims commission act to vest exclusive jurisdiction for all state tax recoveries, excluding those handled by the commissioner of revenue, with the Tennessee Claims Commission. Furthermore, the court systematically addressed and rejected Stewart Title's constitutional arguments concerning the act's scope, due process, separation of powers, and the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, solidifying the commission's role in these matters.

Tax RefundInsurance TaxJurisdictionClaims CommissionChancery CourtStatutory ConstructionConstitutional LawDue ProcessSeparation of PowersAppellate Jurisdiction
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Aiello

Roger and Evelyn Aiello sued Stewart Title Guaranty Company for delayed payment on an agreed judgment stemming from a title defect on their property. The central legal question addressed was whether an insurer's duty of good faith and fair dealing extends beyond the entry of an agreed judgment, which the court affirmed it does. The Aiellos asserted claims including breach of good faith, DTPA, and Insurance Code violations for actions post-judgment. A jury found in favor of the Aiellos on the breach of good faith and contract claims, awarding them actual, exemplary, and attorney's fees. Stewart appealed these findings. The appellate court largely upheld the jury's decision but adjusted the award of attorney's fees and clarified the conditions for appellate attorney's fees, while also affirming the trial court's correct application of res judicata to pre-judgment claims.

Insurance lawBad faithAgreed judgmentBreach of contractDuty of good faith and fair dealingExemplary damagesAttorney's feesTexas Insurance CodeDTPARes judicata
References
59
Case No. 2023-08-1738
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2023

Stewart, Coshando, Surviving Spouse of Michael Stewart v. Memphis, Light, Gas and Water

This compensation order addresses the amount and lump-sum payment of attorney fees for Coshando Stewart, surviving spouse of deceased employee Michael Stewart. Michael Stewart died from electric shock, and Ms. Stewart was awarded maximum benefits and burial expenses. Her attorney, Tim Williams, requested $49,324.00 in fees, representing approximately 9.78% of the total award. The Court found this amount reasonable, citing Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-226 and 50-6-229, and considering factors from Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 1.5. The Court also ordered the attorney's fees to be paid in a lump sum, noting the Tennessee Supreme Court's precedent in death cases.

Attorney FeesLump Sum PaymentWorkers' Compensation Death BenefitsContingency FeeReasonableness of FeesStatutory InterpretationDependency BenefitsElectric Shock FatalitySettlement OfferCourt Discretion
References
1
Case No. 01-03-00107-CV, 01-03-00451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2005

Charles Phillips, Individually v. Sulzer Chemtech, USA, Industrial Specialists, Inc., and Altair Strickland, L.L.P. F/K/A Altair Strickland, Inc.

Angelia Stewart suffered fatal injuries after falling from scaffolding at a worksite owned by The Dow Chemical Company. Charles Phillips, asserting he was her husband, along with Jim Stewart (father) and Randy and Teresa Stephens (guardians of her minor child), filed wrongful death and survival claims against Dow and other contractors involved in the project. The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment in the trial court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments, ruling that Charles Phillips lacked standing as his alleged common-law marriage to Stewart was void due to a prior undissolved marriage. Furthermore, the court found that Chapter 95 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code applied, shielding Dow from liability because it did not retain sufficient control over the work and lacked actual knowledge of the specific dangerous condition.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ClaimsSummary JudgmentStandingCommon-Law MarriagePrior Marriage VoidChapter 95Property Owner LiabilityIndependent ContractorRetained Control
References
27
Case No. W2013-02562-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

State of Tennessee v. Billy Stewart

The Defendant, Billy Stewart, was convicted of four counts of aggravated cruelty to animals and one count of cruelty to animals. He appealed his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of disciplinary records, an alleged Brady violation, and his sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed his convictions, ruling that the evidence sufficiently supported the finding of aggravated cruelty. However, the court noted a plain error in the judgment form, where one count was incorrectly listed as a Class D felony instead of a Class E felony, and remanded the case for correction of that specific judgment.

Animal CrueltyAggravated CrueltyCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceSentencing ErrorBrady ViolationUndercover InvestigationAnimal Shelter ProtocolCatchpole MisuseEuthanasia Procedures
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 102 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