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

Bowling v. Jones

The Andersons (homeowners) sued the Jones brothers (contractors) for breach of a home construction contract, alleging defective workmanship and abandonment. The trial court found in favor of the Andersons, awarding actual damages based on the house having no value and punitive damages under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for misrepresenting they were bonded. On appeal, the court found no error in the trial court's judgment regarding defective workmanship, abandonment of contract, subcontractor liability, or the award of damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, upholding the compensatory damages of $95,485.47 and the $7,500 award under the TCPA.

Construction contractDefective workmanshipContract abandonmentTennessee Consumer Protection ActMisrepresentationPunitive damagesCompensatory damagesImplied warrantiesStructural defectsHome construction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2002

Brooks v. Zurich-American Insurance Group

Plaintiffs Brooks and Beverly Hills Design Studio (BHDS) sued defendant Zurich, their insurer, for breach of contract. BHDS experienced significant losses from defective garments between 1987 and 1990, initially attributed to poor workmanship. Further investigation in 1990 revealed the defects were likely due to intentional sabotage by an employee, prompting Brooks to file insurance claims in June 1990 for losses dating back to December 1988. Zurich denied the claims in October 1991, citing poor workmanship, manufacturing process exclusions, employee infidelity exclusions, and delayed notice, despite not specifying prejudice from the delay. The Supreme Court initially dismissed portions of the fifth cause of action for breach of contract, but the appellate court modified this, reinstating the entire fifth cause of action. The court found that delayed notice could be reasonable if the insured was unaware that an occurrence triggered coverage, as was the case with the discovery of possible sabotage.

Breach of contractInsurance coverageProperty and liability policiesNotice provisionDelayed noticeIndustrial sabotageEmployee vandalismSummary judgmentAppellate reviewReinstatement of cause of action
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2015

CGM Construction, Inc. v. Sydor

Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract over renovations to a historical building's front porch, seeking an unpaid balance for work completed. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging poor workmanship and overcharging. Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiff for the balance owed, but reduced damages and awarded defendant costs related to defective porch decking and stair risers. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the finding that plaintiff was not responsible for defects resulting from defendant's design specifications. However, it reversed the part of the Supreme Court's order that held plaintiff liable for the porch surface decking costs, finding plaintiff followed defendant's instructions regarding the material. The issue of attorney's fees was deemed not ripe for review.

Breach of ContractConstruction DisputeDesign SpecificationPerformance SpecificationAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialRenovation ProjectProperty Owner LiabilityContractor LiabilityWorkmanship Defects
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2004

In Re the Complaint of Rattionis Enterprises, Inc. of Panama

The containership MSC Carla broke apart during a storm in 1997, thirteen years after its mid-section was elongated by Hyundai Corporation (HC) and Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (HMD). The catastrophic failure was attributed to numerous hidden welding defects and design flaws in the inserted section, which were not discoverable by the vessel's owners or crew. Expert testimonies revealed that the break initiated at a negligently created cavity and propagated due to faulty workmanship and residual stresses from poor welding practices. The court rejected the Hyundai defendants' claims regarding the captain's navigation, hatch covers, and vessel overloading. Ultimately, the court found Hyundai Corporation and Hyundai Mipo Dockyard liable to the plaintiffs and third-party plaintiffs based on principles of strict liability and negligence for the defective manufacture and sale of the lengthening insert.

Vessel BreakageMaritime LawStrict LiabilityNegligenceProduct LiabilityShip ElongationWelding DefectsDesign FlawsHyundai CorporationHyundai Mipo Dockyard
References
8
Case No. E1998-00535-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 1999

Jerry Duncan Ford, Inc. v. J. Roy Frost, d/b/a Frost Construction Company

This case consolidates three breach of contract actions stemming from major renovations to an automobile dealership. Jerry Duncan Ford, Inc. sued its general contractor, J. Roy Frost d/b/a Frost Construction Company, for unsatisfactory performance, while Frost counter-sued for breach of contract. A third party, Customer Service Electric Supply, Inc., sued Jerry Duncan Ford, Frost, and the Duncans for unpaid light fixtures. The trial court found an oral guaranteed maximum price of $313,200 by Frost and awarded damages to Jerry Duncan Ford for costs exceeding this guarantee and for defective workmanship. Customer Service also received damages against Frost but its claim against Jerry Duncan Ford and the Duncans was dismissed for lack of proof. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, concluding that parol evidence was properly admitted, that the evidence supported the finding of a guaranteed price, and that Frost had sufficient notice and opportunity to cure defects.

Breach of contractConstruction disputesGuaranteed maximum priceParol evidence ruleWitness credibilityQuantum meruitSubcontractor claimsConstruction defectsContract terminationAppellate review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied. The dissent contends that the sidewalk defect, a quarter-inch protruding metal object, is not trivial and presents an actionable tripping hazard, citing precedents that reject a minimal dimension test for defects. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that the defendant's claim of lack of notice is insufficient to establish an absence of constructive notice, especially given that the defect was present since a new sidewalk installation over two years prior to the accident. Justice Saxe distinguishes the current case from prior trivial defect cases, emphasizing that the defect here constitutes a potential trap or snare, thus raising a question of fact for a jury.

Sidewalk DefectTrivial Defect DoctrineSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeTripping HazardPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyIndependent Contractor LiabilityAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter

This memorandum opinion on remand addresses a product liability lawsuit filed by Janace M. Carter against BIC Pen Corp. after her daughter, Brittany, suffered severe burns from a BIC cigarette lighter. Initially, a jury found both design and manufacturing defects, leading to an award of actual and exemplary damages. However, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the design defect claim was preempted by federal law and remanded the case for consideration of the manufacturing defect claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding actual damages, concluding that the manufacturing defect claim was not preempted, the spoliation instruction was properly given, and there was sufficient evidence to support the manufacturing defect and causation findings. Conversely, the court reversed and rendered the portion of the judgment awarding exemplary damages, finding insufficient evidence to establish malice on the part of BIC Pen Corp. in the manufacturing process.

Product LiabilityManufacturing DefectFederal PreemptionSpoliation InstructionExemplary DamagesActual DamagesCigarette LighterChild SafetyConsumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)Appellate Review
References
32
Case No. 05-0832
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2007

Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.

This case addresses three certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concerning the duty to defend under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy for a homebuilder. The Supreme Court of Texas held that allegations of unintended construction defects may constitute an 'accident' or 'occurrence,' and allegations of damage to or loss of use of the home itself may constitute 'property damage,' both sufficient to trigger the duty to defend. Furthermore, the court concluded that former Article 21.55 of the Texas Insurance Code (now sections 542.051-.061) applies to an insurer's breach of the duty to defend. This decision clarifies the scope of CGL coverage for faulty workmanship by subcontractors in the construction industry.

Commercial General Liability PolicyDuty to DefendConstruction DefectsFaulty WorkmanshipOccurrenceProperty DamageSubcontractor ExceptionTexas Insurance CodePrompt Payment of ClaimsInsurance Coverage
References
0
Case No. 02-08-00210-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Lourdes Maria Vargas De Damian, Individually, as Next Friend to Nicole Denisse Damian Vargas, and as Representative of the Estate of Demetrio Damian Chen v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

Appellants, including family members of deceased pilots and passengers, filed a lawsuit against Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. following a Bell 407 helicopter crash on January 27, 2000, in Panama. The lawsuit alleged strict products liability and negligence, specifically citing design defects in the helicopter's windshield and restraint system. The crash was caused by a black vulture penetrating the windshield, which incapacitated Captain Damian and resulted in fatalities. A jury found a design defect, negligence by both Bell and Captain Damian (50% responsibility each), and awarded damages. The trial court's final judgment was issued on February 28, 2008. On appeal, the court affirmed the portion of the trial court's judgment related to the claims on behalf of Gloria Gasperi's estate. However, it reversed and rendered judgment that other appellants take nothing. The appellate court found no federal preemption, ruled that the Panamanian statute of limitations did not bar the claims, and upheld the sufficiency of evidence for the seatbelt design defect and Captain Damian's comparative negligence. Conversely, the court found insufficient evidence for design defects related to the windshield and door mounts. Claims of juror misconduct were rejected due to legal prohibitions on juror testimony.

Helicopter crashProducts liabilityDesign defectNegligenceFederal preemptionComparative negligenceWrongful death claimsSurvival claimsStatute of limitationsJury misconduct
References
103
Showing 1-10 of 1,306 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