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
Jul 16, 2012

310 East 74 LLC v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

The Supreme Court affirmed an order granting the defendant insurer's motion for summary judgment, thereby relieving the insurer of the duty to defend or indemnify plaintiffs in an underlying personal injury action. The court determined that plaintiffs' seven-month delay in notifying the insurer of the accident was unreasonable and that they failed to establish a good-faith belief in nonliability. Key evidence included the building superintendent's knowledge of the worker's fall and apparent injury, which was imputed to the plaintiffs and necessitated a more thorough inquiry. Additionally, the accident involved a construction worker on plaintiffs' property, indicating potential Labor Law liability, and the appearance of an investigator further put plaintiffs on notice. Finally, the court noted that the insurer was not obligated to demonstrate prejudice from the untimely notice, as the policy predated the relevant amendments to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (5).

Insurance LawDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentUntimely NoticeGood Faith BeliefNon-liabilityPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security Insurance

The case examines if an insurer's breach of the duty to defend obligates it to indemnify the insured for a settlement, even when coverage is contested. Plaintiff Servidone Construction Corporation, an insured, settled an underlying claim after its insurer, Security Insurance Company, withdrew defense citing a policy exclusion. The lower courts ruled that Security was liable to indemnify Servidone due to its breach and the possibility of coverage. The Court of Appeals reversed, asserting that a duty to indemnify only arises from an actual covered loss, not merely from a breach of the duty to defend. It placed the burden on the insurer to prove the loss was not covered and remitted the case for further proceedings to determine actual policy coverage.

Duty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractInsurance LawSettlement AgreementCoverage DisputeWorkers' CompensationFederal Tort Claims ActCommon Law IndemnityContractual Indemnity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler & Binion v. Hartford Lloyd's Insurance Co.

Appellants Butler & Binion, a law firm and several of its partners, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Hartford Lloyd’s Insurance Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company. Butler & Binion had sued the insurers, alleging breach of insurance contracts and duty of good faith for failing to defend and indemnify them in a prior lawsuit brought by Colette Bohatch. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurers, finding no duty to defend or indemnify because Bohatch’s claims of intentional conduct were excluded from coverage under the commercial general liability and workers’ compensation policies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify, and thus, no bad faith claim could be established.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyCommercial General LiabilityWorkers Compensation InsuranceEmployer's Liability InsuranceIntentional Conduct ExclusionBad Faith ClaimSummary Judgment AppealContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 07-19-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2021

Michelle Latray as Receiver of the Assets of Clifton Boatright for the Benefit of Judgment Creditors W.L. Roberts, Dana Roberts, Erin Leigh Roberts, and Katelyn Robert Gonzales v. Colony Insurance Company D/B/A Colony Specialty Insurance Co.

Michelle Latray, acting as a receiver for judgment creditors of Clifton Boatright, appealed a summary judgment ruling which found Colony Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify Boatright. Latray argued the trial court erred because Colony had a duty to defend and indemnify Boatright for damages caused by dumping debris and damaging fences, asserting the acts were negligent rather than intentional, or at least the fence damage was. The Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, denied Latray's motion for rehearing. It affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Boatright's act of dumping debris was intentional, thus not an 'occurrence' covered by the policy. Although the damage to fencing was negligent, the policy's auto exclusion applied to the use of the dump truck and trailer, negating Colony's duty to defend or indemnify for those damages as well.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentAuto ExclusionIntentional TortsNegligenceProperty DamageDebris DumpingReceiver
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2008

Accufleet, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.

AccuFleet, Inc. appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Hartford Fire Insurance Company regarding an insurance coverage dispute. The case centered on Hartford's duty to defend and indemnify AccuFleet and Continental Airlines, an additional insured, in a lawsuit filed by an AccuFleet employee, Gonzalo Escobar, who was injured in a vehicular collision. The collision involved an AccuFleet vehicle and a Continental ground tug. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision that Hartford had no duty to defend or indemnify Continental, finding Continental did not qualify as an "insured" under the policy. However, the court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding Hartford's duty to defend AccuFleet, concluding that Escobar's allegations were sufficient to trigger Hartford's obligation. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyAutomobile LiabilityAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentContract LawEight-Corners RuleVehicular AccidentTexas Appeals Court
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nutmeg Insurance v. Clear Lake City Water Authority

Plaintiff Nutmeg Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment against Defendant Clear Lake City Water Authority, asserting no duty to defend or indemnify Clear Lake in an underlying state court suit. The underlying suit alleged breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unconstitutional taking related to Clear Lake's failure to purchase water and sewer facilities. Nutmeg argued that its insurance policies (errors and omissions, public entity commercial liability, and excess liability) did not cover intentional contract breaches, applied only to fortuitous events, and contained specific exclusions for inverse condemnation, bond-related liability, and contractual obligations. Clear Lake countered that Nutmeg's reservation of rights was inadequate, leading to waiver or estoppel of its defenses, and that an alleged "advertising injury" should trigger coverage. The court granted Nutmeg's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the policies did not cover the alleged damages, intentional breaches, or specific claims due to applicable exclusions. It also rejected Clear Lake's waiver and estoppel arguments, finding no demonstrable prejudice. The court determined that if there is no duty to defend, there is no duty to indemnify.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractCommercial General LiabilityErrors and Omissions PolicyExcess Liability PolicyPolicy ExclusionsInverse Condemnation
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2009

Nassau Plaza Associates, L.P. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance

In an action for a declaratory judgment, the defendant appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment, arguing late notice under an insurance policy. The plaintiffs, however, demonstrated they provided timely notice according to the policy's 'Notice To Company' endorsement. The court found that notice was properly given once the injured worker exhausted workers' compensation claims, thus making the plaintiffs aware of a liability matter. Any alternative interpretation by the defendant was deemed ambiguous and construed in favor of the plaintiffs. The order denying the defendant's motion was affirmed, and upon searching the record, summary judgment was awarded to the plaintiffs, declaring the defendant obligated to defend and indemnify them in the underlying action.

Declaratory JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyInsurance PolicyTimely NoticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation ClaimLiability MatterPolicy Endorsement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 3,317 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