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. NO. 14-13-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2015

MEMC Pasadena, Inc. v. Riddle Power, LLC and Triad Electric and Controls, Inc.

MEMC Pasadena, Inc. sustained damages due to an electrical accident at its industrial plant, causing a shutdown and loss of production. MEMC sued its electrical contractor, Triad Electric and Controls, Inc., and Triad’s subcontractor, Riddle Power, LLC, alleging breach of contract against Triad and negligence against both. Following a jury trial, MEMC was awarded damages against Riddle, but a take-nothing judgment for Triad. On appeal, MEMC challenged various aspects of the trial, including the sufficiency of evidence and jury charges. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on contract terms, estoppel, and MEMC's comparative negligence, and applying the economic loss rule to bar MEMC's negligence claim against Triad.

Electrical AccidentIndustrial Plant ShutdownBreach of ContractNegligence ClaimSubcontractor LiabilityJury Verdict ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceEconomic Loss RuleComparative Responsibility
References
46
Case No. 15-24-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2024

Aspire Power Ventures, LP v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Thomas Gleeson, Lori Cobos, Jimmy Glotfelty, Kathleen Jackson, and Courtney Hjaltman

This case involves Aspire Power Ventures, LP appealing the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), and various commissioners. Aspire challenged the legality of the ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service (ECRS) protocols, arguing they illegally restrain electricity supply, violate the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) by compelling generators to withhold power, and were implemented without adhering to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking requirements. The district court granted the defendants' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing Aspire's claims for lack of jurisdiction. Aspire seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the ECRS rules are invalid and cause substantial, irreparable harm to market participants and Texas consumers due to inflated electricity prices and increased price volatility.

Electricity MarketEnergy RegulationAdministrative Procedure ActPublic Utility Regulatory ActERCOTPUCTRulemaking ChallengeJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEnergy Prices
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Electric Co. v. M/V Gediz

General Electric Company brought an action against Turkish Cargo Lines under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) for alleged cargo damage. Turkish Cargo Lines moved for summary judgment, asserting that General Electric's claim was barred by COGSA's one-year statute of limitations. General Electric contended that Turkish Cargo was estopped from raising this defense due to its conduct, which supposedly induced General Electric not to file suit within the required period. The court conducted a hearing to assess the validity of the estoppel claim. Ultimately, the court found that General Electric failed to demonstrate sufficient conduct by Turkish Cargo to warrant an estoppel, noting that claimed extensions were invalid or made by unauthorized agents. Consequently, Turkish Cargo Lines' motion for summary judgment was granted, and General Electric's complaint was dismissed as time-barred.

COGSAStatute of LimitationsEstoppelSummary JudgmentCargo DamageMaritime LawShipping DisputeAgent AuthoritySettlement NegotiationsTime Barred
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. v. Texas Utilities Electric Co.

Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) sued Metrocom, Inc. d/b/a Whi-teco, and Whiteco Industries, Inc. d/b/a Whiteco (Whiteco) for indemnification of costs incurred after a Whiteco employee was injured by a high-voltage power line. Whiteco appealed a summary judgment granted to TU Electric, claiming immunity under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code section 417.004. The court considered whether this immunity statute precluded TU Electric's right to indemnification under Health and Safety Code section 752.008, which addresses liability for contact with electrical power lines. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the immunity statute does not apply to a suit for indemnity arising from a breach of the statutory duty imposed by the health and safety code.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationStatutory DutyHigh Voltage Power LineSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityHealth and Safety CodeLabor CodeCode Construction ActStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97 v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

This case involves a dispute between International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97 (the union) and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The union sought to confirm an arbitration award that reinstated employee Patrick J. Rando, who was discharged by Niagara Mohawk after adulterating a drug test sample and later testing positive for cocaine. Niagara Mohawk counterclaimed to vacate the award, arguing it violated public policy related to nuclear safety. The employee, a Chemistry Technician at a nuclear power plant, had unescorted access to critical areas. The court reviewed the public policy implications de novo, citing NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 26) that emphasize strict adherence to nuclear safety rules and the trustworthiness of personnel. The court found that the grievant's conduct directly contravened this well-defined public policy. Consequently, the court denied the union's motion to confirm, granted Niagara Mohawk's cross-motion, and vacated the arbitration award, dismissing the complaint entirely. Both parties' requests for attorney's fees were denied.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyNuclear SafetyDrug TestingEmployee DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessTrustworthinessReliabilityReinstatement
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MEMC Pasadena, Inc. v. Riddle Power, LLC

MEMC Pasadena, Inc. sued Triad Electric and Controls, Inc. and Riddle Power, LLC after an electrical accident caused a plant shutdown and loss of production. MEMC alleged breach of contract against Triad and negligence against both. A jury awarded MEMC $90,000 against Riddle but a take-nothing judgment for Triad. MEMC appealed, raising twenty-two issues challenging evidence sufficiency and jury charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the jury's conclusions regarding contract terms, agency, estoppel, and comparative negligence, and holding that MEMC's negligence claim against Triad was barred by the economic loss rule.

Electrical AccidentIndustrial Plant ShutdownLoss of ProductionBreach of ContractNegligenceEconomic Loss RuleAppellate ReviewJury TrialContractual Waiver of Consequential DamagesAgent Authority
References
45
Case No. 03-02-00001-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Reliant Energy, Incorporated and American Electric Power Company v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This direct appeal concerns a challenge by Reliant Energy, Incorporated and American Electric Power Company against the Public Utility Commission of Texas regarding a rule on stranded-cost recovery for deregulated electric utilities. Stranded costs are prudently incurred expenditures that became unrecoverable in a deregulated market. The utilities argued that the Commission exceeded its authority in promulgating portions of substantive rule 25.263, specifically regarding the "netting" of stranded costs with other true-up items like fuel balances, the application of a control premium in partial stock valuation, and the consideration of "other admitted evidence." The court held that the Commission exceeded its authority in these areas, reversing and remanding those portions of the rule, but affirmed other challenged provisions, including the timing of interest accrual and the duty of successor affiliates to reduce potential stranded costs.

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsPublic Utility CommissionUtility RegulationAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityTrue-up ProceedingsSecuritizationFuel BalanceMarket Valuation
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electrical & Machine Workers v. General Electric Co.

This case involves a dispute between the International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers (Union) and General Electric Company (Company), and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, concerning a 1966 Pension and Insurance Agreement and its incorporated Insurance Plan. The Union alleged the Company wrongfully rejected sickness and accident claims filed during a strike and, alternatively, sought reimbursement for employee contributions for coverage not provided during the strike. The central issue was the interpretation of clauses governing sickness and accident benefits during voluntary strike absences. The Court found that the Company properly rejected claims for benefits arising more than 31 days into the strike, dismissing the Union's first claim. However, the Court ruled that employees are entitled to reimbursement for the portion of their contributions related to sickness and accident coverage not afforded during the strike, and ordered an assessment of damages if parties cannot agree on the amount.

labour lawcollective bargaining agreementinsurance plansickness and accident benefitsstrikeemployee contributionscontract interpretationunjust enrichmentdamagesfederal court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sosa v. Central Power & Light Co.

The Sosas sued Central Power & Light, Houston Power & Light, and General Electric for the wrongful death of Mr. Sosa, alleging liver disease from toxic chemical exposure in the early 1970s. Mr. Sosa died on June 1, 1991, and the Sosas filed suit on June 1, 1993. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing the Sosas' First Amended Original Petition's allegations showed Mr. Sosa was incapacitated for twenty years, implying knowledge of injury. The Sosas attempted to file a Second Amended Original Petition without leave of court to invoke the discovery rule, but it was struck as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the Second Amended Original Petition was untimely, leave to file was properly denied, the First Amended Original Petition's allegations constituted judicial admissions, and thus, the limitations defense barred the claim as Mr. Sosa was aware of his injuries more than four years prior to his death.

Wrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmended PleadingDiscovery RuleJudicial AdmissionsToxic ExposureLiver DiseaseAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weesner v. Electric Power Board of Chattanooga

This case involves a dispute over the amount of retirement compensation due to employees of the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Board established a retirement plan in 1944, later revised, which included employee contributions and a guaranteed minimum retirement income of 20% of their base salary. Following an overwhelming employee vote in 1956 to accept Social Security benefits, the Board assured employees that their existing retirement rights would remain unaffected. However, a 1958 revision to the plan altered the calculation of the minimum retirement income to include primary Social Security benefits, effectively reducing the Board's contribution. The complainants, who retired in 1957, challenged this, arguing they had a right to rely on the Board's prior assurances. The court found in favor of the employees, holding that the Board was estopped from asserting a contrary position and that the employees were entitled to 20% of their base salary irrespective of Social Security benefits.

Retirement PlanEmployee BenefitsSocial Security IntegrationContractual RightsEstoppelVested RightsPension DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsCompensationPlan Amendment
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 5,741 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