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. 03-07-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2008

Luis Lagaite, Jr. v. Brad Livingston, David Doughty, Keith Clendennen, Tracy Allen, Joseph M. Smith and Kelli Ward

Luis Lagaite, Jr., an inmate, appealed the dismissal of his suit against employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). Lagaite originally filed a petition for writ of mandamus in Travis County, alleging retaliation for reporting official misconduct and seeking reinstatement as a breakfast cook, among other reliefs. The TDCJ employees filed a motion to dismiss under Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which allows dismissal of inmate lawsuits deemed frivolous or malicious, and the trial court granted this motion. The trial court dismissed Lagaite's suit for failing to comply with Section 14.004, which requires an inmate to file a declaration of previous lawsuits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion as Lagaite failed to provide the required declaration.

Inmate litigationpro se appealChapter 14 dismissalCivil Practice and Remedies Codefrivolous lawsuitadministrative remediesretaliationTexas Department of Criminal Justiceappellate reviewabuse of discretion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Ruiz

This case involves a declaratory judgment action filed by Sentry Select Insurance Company against Rudolph Automotive, LLC, Rudolph Chevrolet, LLC, Christian Ulises Ruiz, Marcelo Flores, and Lynn Crawford. Sentry sought declarations that it had no duty to defend or indemnify these defendants under an insurance policy for an underlying auto accident lawsuit. The underlying lawsuit stemmed from an incident where a Rudolph Mazda employee, Ruiz, hit a co-worker, Villegas, with his vehicle on the dealership premises after an informal social gathering where alcohol was consumed. The court analyzed the Host Liquor Liability coverage and the Employer's Liability exclusion within Sentry's policy. The court declared that Sentry has no duty to defend or indemnify Ruiz, Flores, and Crawford, but does have a duty to defend the Rudolph Entities. The question of Sentry's duty to indemnify the Rudolph Entities was deferred pending the resolution of the underlying lawsuit, and the current case was administratively closed.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentAuto AccidentEmployer LiabilityHost Liquor LiabilityInsurance Policy InterpretationDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyCommercial Garage LiabilityExcess Liability Coverage
References
33
Case No. ADJ1990332 (OAK 0251897) ADJ332563 (OAK 0262649) ADJ2879880 (OAK 0263586) ADJ4303903 (OAK 0264811)
Regular
Nov 09, 2009

TERRY D. BROWN vs. PORT OF OAKLAND

The Appeals Board declared Terry Brown a vexatious litigant due to repeatedly filing unmeritorious papers attempting to relitigate previously determined issues. A prefiling order was implemented requiring review of his future filings.

Vexatious litigantRemovalAppeals BoardRule 10782Prefiling orderIn propria personaUnmeritorious petitionsConditional filingPresiding WCJGood cause
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hermany Farms, Inc. v. Seneca Ins.

This case concerns Hermany Farms Inc.'s declaratory judgment action against Seneca Insurance Company. Hermany sought a declaration that Seneca was obligated to defend and indemnify it in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment to Hermany. The court found that Hermany failed to provide timely notice to Seneca 'as soon as practicable' after the occurrence. Despite Hermany's argument of a good faith belief in nonliability, evidence showed Hermany's employees and owners were aware of the accident and a workers' compensation report was filed shortly after the incident, negating a reasonable belief of nonliability. The court concluded that Hermany failed to establish the reasonableness of its proffered excuse for late notice.

Insurance coverage disputeDeclaratory judgmentLate notice of claimDuty to defendDuty to indemnifySummary judgment reversalPersonal injury claimGood faith beliefWorkers' compensation reportAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. FRE 0212901
Regular
Jul 23, 2008

JANETTA SCONIERS vs. COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

The applicant, Janetta Sconiers, has been declared a vexatious litigant and ordered to pay a $1,000 sanction. This decision stems from her repeated filing of frivolous and duplicative petitions to disqualify the judge and set aside prior orders, despite previous admonitions and sanctions. Consequently, her future filings will require approval from the presiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge.

Vexatious LitigantPropria PersonaWCJ DisqualificationFrivolous PleadingsBad Faith ConductSanctionsDuplicative FilingsAffirmative ReliefWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5813
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watch Hill Homeowners Ass'n v. Town Board

The Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh proposed constructing a 1,000,000-gallon water tank and, acting as lead agency under SEQRA, designated it a "Type I" action. Despite identifying "potential large impacts" on the environment, the Board issued a negative declaration of environmental significance. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the issuance of the negative declaration as arbitrary and capricious. The court found that the Town Board failed to provide a "reasoned elaboration" for its determination, especially regarding the project's aesthetic impacts, which it deemed insufficient to justify a negative declaration. Consequently, the court annulled the Town Board's determination, granted the petition, and declared Resolution No. 93-46 and all subsequent construction authorizations invalid.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationCPLR Article 78Water Storage TankTown BoardGreenburghAesthetic ImpactEnvironmental AssessmentType I Action
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1979

Hughes, Harrison & Brown Roofing, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance

Plaintiffs, a corporation and individuals, initiated an action seeking a declaration that their insurance company, the defendant, was obligated to defend and indemnify them in a negligence lawsuit filed by an employee, Patrick Paul Black. The underlying negligence action alleged that the corporation failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. The defendant insurer denied its obligation, citing policy exclusions related to workers' compensation liabilities and disputing coverage for the individual plaintiffs. Initially, the Supreme Court, Orange County, granted the plaintiffs' request for accelerated judgment, compelling the insurer to provide defense. However, this judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, with the appellate court noting the absence of the actual insurance policy and the impropriety of adjudicating coverage without it, especially concerning the workers' compensation exclusion.

Insurance coverage disputeDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyWorkers' compensation exclusionAccelerated judgmentNegligence actionEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewPolicy interpretationSummary judgment
References
0
Case No. 03-07-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2008

Joshua Caleb Lowry v. State

Luis Lagaite, Jr., an inmate appearing pro se, appealed the dismissal of his suit against six employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). Lagaite had filed a petition for writ of mandamus in Travis County, alleging retaliation for reporting official misconduct and requesting reinstatement to his former position as a breakfast cook. The TDCJ employees filed a motion to dismiss under Chapter 14 of the civil practice and remedies code. The trial court granted the motion, citing Lagaite's failure to comply with section 14.004, which mandates a declaration detailing previous lawsuits filed by an inmate. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion.

Inmate litigationPro SeDismissalFrivolous lawsuitChapter 14Civil Practice and Remedies CodeDeclaration of previous lawsuitsAdministrative remediesAbuse of discretionAppellate review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 5,779 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