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

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. 08-21-00145-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2021

Schneider Electric USA, Inc. D/B/A Schneider Electric v. Maria Ramirez

Maria Ramirez, an Aerotek employee assigned to Schneider Electric, filed a workers' compensation discrimination claim against Schneider Electric under Texas Labor Code Section 451.001. Schneider Electric moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be liable under Section 451 because it did not provide Ramirez's workers' compensation coverage, which was handled by Aerotek. The trial court denied Schneider Electric's motion but granted permission for an interlocutory appeal. Schneider Electric, as the appellant, argues that the trial court erred in denying summary judgment, contending that Section 451 liability only applies to the entity providing workers' compensation coverage to the claimant, which in this case was Aerotek, not Schneider Electric. The appellant requests that the appellate court reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment and dismiss Ramirez's claim with prejudice.

Workers' Compensation DiscriminationSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeStaffing Agency LiabilityCo-EmploymentRetaliatory DischargePermissive AppealEmployer LiabilityTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate Brief
References
34
Case No. 14-05-00908-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2007

Gilbane Building Company v. Two Turner's Electric Co. Dba Turner Electric Co.

In this case, Gilbane Building Company, a general contractor, appealed a judgment in favor of its electrical subcontractor, Turner Electric Company. Turner Electric sued Gilbane for breach of contract, alleging increased labor costs due to significant compression of the project schedule caused by Gilbane's decisions. The jury found in favor of Turner Electric, and the trial court awarded damages. The appellate court reviewed Gilbane's challenges regarding the sufficiency of evidence for damages and Turner Electric's compliance with contractual conditions for claims. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ample evidence to support Turner Electric's claims and noting that Gilbane had waived its procedural defenses.

Construction LawContract BreachSubcontractor DisputeGeneral ContractorDamages CalculationLabor CostsSchedule CompressionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureBusiness Litigation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bel-Ton Electric Service, Inc. v. Pickle

Bel-Ton Electric Service, Inc. appealed a judgment holding it liable for the death of Joe Pickle, an LTV employee. Pickle was killed when he was crushed by a hangar door, an accident attributed to Bel-Ton's failure to remove an electrical switch during a renovation, which was later jammed in the 'close' position by another LTV employee. The jury found Bel-Ton 100% negligent and awarded $850,000 in damages to Suzie Y. Pickle and National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On appeal, Bel-Ton contended that its conduct was not the proximate cause of death, arguing for an intervening or sole cause, and sought a credit for a settlement by LTV. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence of Bel-Ton's proximate cause and rejecting its arguments regarding intervening cause, sole cause, and the settlement credit.

Proximate CausationIntervening ActSole Cause DoctrineComparative NegligenceJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictAppellate ProcedureElectrical SafetyWorkplace AccidentWrongful DeathDamages Calculation
References
45
Case No. 05-19-01331-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2022

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. Victor Quintanilla, Oscar Interiano Rosales and Accident Fund Insurance Company of America

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC appealed a jury finding of negligence after two excavation workers, Victor Quintanilla and Oscar Interiano Rosales, were electrocuted by an energized guy wire at a construction site in Dallas County, Texas. Oncor argued that its Chapter 752 defense, based on the workers' alleged failure to provide notice and safety arrangements before excavation, should bar the claims. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's negligence finding against Oncor. The court also rejected Oncor's challenges to the jury's adverse findings on its Chapter 752 defense, as well as arguments regarding jury charge errors and alleged improper jury argument by appellees' counsel.

Workplace InjuryElectrical HazardNegligence LiabilityHigh Voltage LinesStatutory DefenseJury VerdictAppellate AffirmationConstruction Site SafetyIndependent Contractor LiabilityForeseeability of Harm
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Insurance v. Dixie Electric, LLC

Liberty Insurance Corporation filed a declaratory judgment action against its insured, Dixie Electric, LLC, seeking a declaration that it had no obligation under an insurance policy to indemnify Dixie for a settlement in an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. The underlying lawsuit stemmed from the fatal electrocution of a Dixie employee, Eddie Hilburn, and was pursued under New Mexico's *Delgado* claim, which requires proof of non-accidental, willful conduct. Liberty argued that its policy covered only "bodily injury by accident," a standard incompatible with the *Delgado* claim. Dixie contended that a *Delgado* claim was equivalent to gross negligence, which should satisfy the policy's "accident" requirement under Texas law. The court rejected Dixie's argument, concluding that the *Delgado* standard for liability and the policy's "accident" requirement were mutually exclusive. Consequently, the court granted Liberty's motion for summary judgment, denying Dixie's request for indemnification.

declaratory judgmentinsurance coverageemployer liabilityworkers compensationbodily injury by accidentNew Mexico lawTexas lawDelgado claimsummary judgmentintentional tort
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. General Electric Co.

The Union, consisting of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and five of its locals, sued General Electric Company under the Taft-Hartley Act to compel arbitration of various grievances. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The central issues revolve around whether the 1956-1960 collective bargaining agreement provides for compulsory arbitration and if the grievances fall within its scope. The court found the contract language ambiguous, requiring extrinsic evidence for proper interpretation. Consequently, the court denied both motions for summary judgment, citing the presence of genuine issues of material fact that warrant a full trial.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationTaft-Hartley ActSummary JudgmentLabor LawContract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceAmbiguityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureGrievance Procedure
References
22
Case No. 2022-03-0938
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2023

McCorkhill, Aaron v. Landon Electric Co., Inc.

The employee, Aaron McCorkhill, sustained injuries in a single-vehicle accident while driving a company-owned vehicle. Prior to the accident, he experienced intestinal issues at work and decided to return home to shower and change before completing sales calls. His employer, Landon Electric Co., Inc., denied compensability, asserting the accident was not in the course and scope of employment. The trial court determined that this case was an exception to the 'going and coming rule' because the employee was in a company-provided vehicle and his errand had a business purpose benefiting the employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's determination and remanded the case.

Course and Scope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleCompany Vehicle ExceptionDual Purpose DoctrineInterlocutory AppealMedical BenefitsFractured SternumFractured VertebraTennessee LawEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 04-12-00506-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2013

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Clarence Dailey Electric, Inc

Texas Mutual Insurance Company appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Clarence Dailey Electric, Inc. The case originated from a construction site accident where Cam E. Beasley, an employee of Tate Painting, was seriously injured while using a scissor-lift owned by Dailey Electric, driving it into an uncovered hole at a gymnasium remodeling project. Texas Mutual, Tate Painting's workers' compensation carrier, intervened to protect its subrogation interests, arguing that Dailey Electric was negligent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding that Texas Mutual failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the cause in fact component of proximate cause for negligence, and also failed to produce proof on essential elements of premises liability.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseCause in FactDuty of CareConstruction Site Accident
References
30
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,508 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