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

Atlantic Casualty Insurance v. Value Waterproofing, Inc.

Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Value Waterproofing, Inc. in an underlying breach of contract and negligence lawsuit. Value counterclaimed, requesting a declaration that Atlantic Casualty was required to defend and indemnify. The court granted Atlantic Casualty's request, finding that Value failed to provide timely notice of the claim, thereby prejudicing Atlantic Casualty's investigation capabilities. Additionally, the court ruled that Value's work on a commercial property was not covered by its residential-only roofing insurance policy, further justifying the denial of coverage.

Insurance disputeBreach of contractNegligenceDeclaratory judgmentTimely noticeCoverage exclusionCommercial General LiabilityResidential roofingPolicy interpretationPrejudice
References
46
Case No. E2002-01340-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2003

Precision Electric v. State

This case concerns an appeal arising from an accident between a truck owned by Precision Electric Company, Inc. (Claimant) and a vehicle owned by the State of Tennessee. The Claimant sought $19,845 in compensatory damages from the Tennessee Claims Commission for diminution in value of its truck and lost net profits. The Administrative Law Judge awarded only $2,217 for a wrecker bill and interest, finding the Claimant failed to provide sufficient proof for other damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings regarding the insufficiency of proof for diminution in value, rental expenses, and lost profits. The case was remanded for the collection of costs.

Truck AccidentCompensatory DamagesDiminution in ValueLost ProfitsBurden of ProofCredibility of WitnessEvidence SufficiencyRental ExpensesAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
11
Case No. 13-00-241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2002

Waste Disposal Center, Inc. v. Larson, Michelle and Soila Valdez

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas partially affirmed and partially reversed a judgment from a jury trial involving Waste Disposal Center, Inc. as appellant and Michelle Larson and Soila Valdez as appellees. Waste Disposal appealed the jury's award of actual damages for diminution in market value and mental anguish, and exemplary damages. The court found sufficient evidence for diminution in market value for both appellees' properties but reversed the mental anguish damages awarded to Valdez, citing a lack of evidence for severe mental pain. Furthermore, the court upheld the award of exemplary damages, as actual property damages were sustained. Cross-appellants (landowners including Valdez) appealed the dismissal of their suit against the Estate of Franklin F. Kelley and the trial court's failure to charge the jury on strict liability, both of which were affirmed or deemed waived by the appellate court. Finally, Valdez's constitutional challenge to the exemplary damages cap was rejected, with the court affirming its constitutionality under both the open courts provision and separation of powers doctrine.

Property DamageExemplary DamagesMental AnguishDiminution in Market ValueStrict LiabilityJurisdictionEstate LiabilityOpen Courts ProvisionSeparation of PowersConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P.

This case addresses the proper method for compensating a landowner for the destruction of trees on their property. Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. (Wheeler) sued Enbridge Pipelines, L.P. (Enbridge) for breach of contract and trespass after Enbridge destroyed several hundred feet of trees while constructing a pipeline, violating an agreement to use an underground boring method. The Texas Supreme Court clarifies the application of the temporary-versus-permanent injury distinction to real property damages, holding it applies to both tort and contract claims and is a question of law for the court. The Court confirms two exceptions to general damage rules: the economic feasibility exception, deeming the injury permanent due to restoration costs significantly exceeding market value diminution, and the intrinsic value of trees exception, allowing recovery for ornamental and utilitarian value even with nominal market value loss. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to address remaining issues consistent with this opinion.

Real Property DamagesBreach of ContractTrespassTree DestructionTemporary vs. Permanent InjuryDamages CalculationEconomic Feasibility ExceptionIntrinsic Value of TreesAppellate ReviewJury Instructions
References
29
Case No. 13-0234
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2014

Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Gilbert Wheeler, Inc.

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed how landowners are compensated for tree destruction on their property, particularly when the harm stems from a contract breach rather than tort. Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. sued Enbridge Pipelines for breach of contract and trespass after Enbridge damaged their 153-acre property by clearing trees, despite an agreement to use an underground boring method. The Court clarified the 'temporary-versus-permanent' injury distinction, affirming its applicability to both contract and tort claims concerning real property. It also solidified the 'intrinsic value of trees' exception, allowing compensation for aesthetic and utilitarian value even with negligible property market value diminution. The Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Real Property DamagesTree DestructionBreach of ContractTrespassTemporary InjuryPermanent InjuryMeasure of DamagesCost to RestoreFair Market ValueIntrinsic Value of Trees
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Korthals v. Valu Home Centers, Inc.

Claimant sustained back injuries in 2003 and 2009 while employed by Valu Home Centers, Inc. and Spectrum Human Services, respectively. A 2009 independent medical examination apportioned liability for her condition across both injuries and prior motor vehicle accidents. After claimant's 2011 back surgery, Spectrum's carrier requested further action, prompting Valu's carrier to seek a liability transfer for the 2003 claim to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Workers’ Compensation Board approved this transfer, ruling no prior request to reopen the 2003 claim existed. The Special Fund appealed, contending the 2009 medical report served as an application to reopen. The court reversed the Board's decision, determining that the medical report submitted in 2009 indeed constituted a timely application to reopen the 2003 claim, thereby preventing liability transfer to the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ApportionmentClaim ReopeningIndependent Medical ExaminationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewBack InjuryPrior InjurySeven-Year Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1985

In Re Continental Airlines Corp.

The case concerns Continental Airlines' motion to disallow or estimate at zero value the contract rejection damages claimed by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) following Continental's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Continental had rejected its collective bargaining agreement with ALPA, and ALPA subsequently filed a $408 million claim for damages. The court asserted jurisdiction over the claim, rejecting ALPA's argument for deferral to a specialized tribunal. The court ultimately concluded that ALPA's claim for lost future wages lacked merit because the collective bargaining agreement did not guarantee employment and Continental would have ceased operations regardless. Additionally, the court found ALPA's damage calculations flawed as they extended beyond the contract's termination date. Consequently, the court disallowed ALPA's claim entirely and estimated its value at zero.

BankruptcyContract RejectionCollective Bargaining AgreementAirline IndustryLabor LawDamages EstimationBankruptcy JurisdictionArbitration DeferralRailway Labor ActChapter 11 Reorganization
References
90
Case No. ADJ9944770
Regular
Oct 19, 2018

Sam Zavalata vs. Conifer Value Based Care, LLC

This case involves applicant Sam Zavaleta's workers' compensation claim for psychiatric and orthopedic injuries against Conifer Value Based Care, LLC. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the trial judge's decision, finding that the medical opinions from both the orthopedic and psychiatric evaluators required further development. Specifically, issues exist regarding the orthopedic causation of cumulative trauma injury to the applicant's psyche, back, neck, and wrist, as well as the substantial causation of the psychiatric injury in relation to the defendant's good faith personnel action defense. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderPsychiatric InjuryCumulative TraumaPersonnel Action DefenseGood FaithCausationMedical OpinionApportionment
References
12
Case No. 06-12-00016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

in the Matter of the Marriage of Betty Janis Edwards and Marvin Laverl Edwards

Marvin Laverl Edwards appealed a trial court's property division in his divorce from Betty Janis Edwards. Betty was awarded reimbursement for the enhanced value of Laverl's separate real estate and for the value of cattle purchases, as well as appellate attorney's fees. Laverl challenged these awards, arguing Betty failed to establish the portion of enhanced value attributable to her separate funds, and that the cattle funds were commingled community property. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the reimbursement for the enhanced property value to the community estate, and that any mischaracterization of cattle funds as separate property was harmless as Betty was awarded half the net value. The court also upheld the conditional award of appellate attorney's fees to Betty.

DivorceProperty DivisionCommunity PropertySeparate PropertyReimbursementEnhanced ValueAppellate Attorney's FeesTexas Family LawMarital EstateEquitable Lien
References
38
Case No. 2-05-355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2006

Twenty Wings Ltd., D/B/A Hooters v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Partnership for Community Values The Hon. Bill Zedler The Hon. Ron Wright The Hon. Steve McCollum Mrs. Leslie Recine Mrs. Melba McDow The Hon. Patricia A. Hardy Mr. Barry D. Johnson Mrs. Reland Gonzalez

This case addresses whether a trial court possessed the authority to issue a writ of mandamus compelling an administrative law judge to dismiss an administrative proceeding based on res judicata. Twenty Wings, Ltd. d/b/a Hooters, sought a mixed beverage permit, which was contested by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) and other appellees. After the administrative law judge (ALJ) denied a motion to dismiss, the appellees filed a proceeding in district court, which subsequently granted a writ of mandamus. The appellate court determined that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the TABC and the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) to adjudicate the substantive legal and factual issues concerning mixed beverage permits. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject matter jurisdiction to issue the mandamus order.

MandamusExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative LawRes JudicataAlcoholic Beverage PermitTexas CourtsAppellate ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionTABCSOAH
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 499 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