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

Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc. v. Lorac Service Corp.

This case before the Texas Supreme Court concerns a deceptive trade practices claim brought by Lorac Service Corporation against Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc., a Hertz franchisee. Lorac alleged that Sherman Simon Enterprises misrepresented that its automobile rental agreement provided liability insurance coverage and subsequently refused to honor this coverage after an accident involving a Lorac employee. While the trial court and court of appeals found in favor of Lorac, awarding treble damages and attorney's fees, Sherman Simon Enterprises appealed, challenging Lorac's consumer status and the sufficiency of evidence for misrepresentation. The Supreme Court upheld Lorac's qualification as a consumer under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. However, the court ultimately concluded there was no evidence of misrepresentation, as Sherman Simon Enterprises did provide the promised liability coverage through its insurer, even though the insurer initially refused to defend Lorac. Consequently, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of Sherman Simon Enterprises.

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Consumer StatusAutomobile Rental AgreementLiability Insurance CoverageMisrepresentationAgencyCorporation as ConsumerInsurance Contract BreachAppellate ReviewTexas Supreme Court
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perkins v. Enterprise Truck Lines, Inc.

Oscar Lee Perkins, a leased-operator for Enterprise Truck Line, Inc., was injured in 1991 while working, sustaining a fractured hip, back injury, and broken arm. Despite Enterprise initially paying medical bills and weekly workers' compensation, they later denied employment status and coverage due to failure to file a written election notice. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the trial court's finding of employment, stating Perkins was a leased-operator and no proper election was made. The Supreme Court reviewed this decision, holding that the statutory filing requirement for election of workers' compensation coverage for leased operators is directory, not mandatory, and substantial compliance is sufficient. Finding that Enterprise had substantially complied by agreeing to provide coverage and paying initial benefits, the Court reinstated the trial court's award of thirty-five percent permanent partial disability to Perkins.

Workers' CompensationLeased OperatorEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationSubstantial ComplianceElection of CoverageVocational DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical ImpairmentTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. 03-07-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2009

Restaurant Enterprises, L.P. D/B/A or F/D/B/A Austin's Pizza v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Appellant Restaurant Enterprises, L.P. (Austin's Pizza) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Appellee Travelers Indemnity Co. The core dispute revolved around whether Restaurant owed Travelers insurance premiums for more than the initial four stores, as Travelers claimed coverage for all of Restaurant's locations. The trial court had granted summary judgment to Travelers, awarding damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, finding that Travelers failed to demonstrate the absence of material fact issues regarding other insurance coverage held by Restaurant during the relevant period. The court also deemed Travelers' supporting affidavit conclusory and lacking factual basis due to the absence of attached policy documents. Furthermore, the appellate court noted that the trial court's judgment erroneously purported to dispose of all claims, as Restaurant's counterclaims for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and DTPA violations were not addressed. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary judgmentInsurance coverage disputeSworn accountBreach of contractNegligent misrepresentationFraudDTPA violationsAppellate reviewConclusory affidavitMaterial fact
References
11
Case No. 05-17-01421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2018

in Re: Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC

This legal document is Magellan Crude Oil Pipeline Company, L.P.'s (Real Party in Interest) response to an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC (Relator). The core dispute revolves around Enterprise's alleged breach of a Crude Oil Distribution Agreement, specifically its 10-year commitment to exclusively use Magellan's Houston-area crude oil distribution facilities. Enterprise sought to prevent discovery, claiming requests were overbroad, burdensome, and sought trade secrets or inadmissible parol evidence. Magellan argues the mandamus should be denied, asserting its discovery requests are relevant to contract breach, fraud, and promissory estoppel claims, and that Enterprise's objections lack merit given Magellan's contractual audit rights. The document concludes by advocating for the denial of Enterprise's mandamus petition.

Contract DisputeMandamusDiscovery OrderTrade SecretsParol EvidenceSummary JudgmentRequirements ContractPipeline TransportationCrude OilGood Faith
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. W2021-00448-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2022

Jase Enterprises, LLC v. Tennessee Bureau of Workers' Compensation

Jase Enterprises, LLC appealed a penalty assessed by the Tennessee Bureau of Workers' Compensation for failure to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage. The administrative law judge (ALJ) and the Chancery Court both upheld the penalty, although the ALJ modified the amount. Jase argued that its due process rights were violated and that the penalty assessment was arbitrary, particularly questioning the employment status of Joe Sheldon. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Jase received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The court found that the penalty assessment was supported by substantial and material evidence, including Sheldon's deposition. Jase's request for attorney's fees was also denied.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePenalty AssessmentDue ProcessAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewEmployment StatusSubstantial EvidenceContested Case HearingCivil PenaltyTennessee Law
References
22
Case No. 2018-08-1394
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2019

Johnson, Frederick v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car

Frederick Johnson, a service technician, sustained injuries when a co-worker accidentally struck him with a van at Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Enterprise denied his claim, asserting his injuries resulted from horseplay and willful misconduct, which the employer prohibited. However, the Court found insufficient evidence to support the horseplay defense, concluding instead that the incident stemmed from a miscommunication and the co-worker's improper driving. The Court ruled that Mr. Johnson is likely to prevail on the merits, granting him medical and temporary total disability benefits. Enterprise was ordered to cover incurred medical expenses, provide a panel of physicians, and pay $885.95 in temporary total disability.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingHorseplay DefenseWillful MisconductMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCredibility AssessmentMiscommunicationEmployee InjuryEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1995

Claim of Tavano v. Tavano Enterprises, Inc.

Claimant, a foreman for Tavano Enterprises, Inc., suffered various injuries, including the loss of an eye, in August 1991 due to a blasting cap explosion. His employer's workers' compensation insurance policy with National Grange Mutual Insurance Company was due for renewal. Despite receiving a cancellation notice for nonpayment of premium, an agent for the carrier's broker repeatedly assured the employer that coverage would not lapse while new, reduced premium figures were being processed. Relying on these assurances and a subsequently issued certificate of insurance, the employer believed its coverage remained active. After the claimant's injury, the carrier denied coverage, asserting the policy had been canceled. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately ruled that the carrier was estopped from disclaiming liability, a decision which the Appellate Division affirmed, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

EstoppelInsurance CoverageWorkers' CompensationBlasting InjuryAgent AuthorityPremium NonpaymentPolicy CancellationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBroker Assurance
References
2
Case No. 08-04-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

Francisco Garcia, Individually and as Next Friend of Francisco Garcia, Jr., and Kevin Garcia, Minor Children v. J. J. S. Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A/ PDQ Drive-In Grocery

Francisco Garcia, individually and as next friend for his minor children, Francisco Garcia, Jr. and Kevin Garcia (the Garcias), appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc. (J.J.S. Enterprises). The case originated from the death of Rosario Michelle Garcia, who died during a robbery at her employer, PDQ Drive-In Grocery. Mrs. Garcia, a cashier, pursued a shoplifter against company policy, fell from a moving vehicle, and was fatally injured. The Garcias filed a wrongful death suit alleging negligence, but J.J.S. Enterprises moved for summary judgment citing a pre-injury waiver. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling the pre-injury waiver valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' lawsuit.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentPre-Injury WaiverOccupational Accident PlanNon-Subscriber EmployerTexas LawPublic PolicyFair NoticeActual Knowledge
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2007

Macro Enterprises, Ltd. v. QBE Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The court declared that the plaintiff is not entitled to defense and indemnity coverage in an underlying third-party action. The decision was based on the plaintiff's failure to notify the defendant insurer for over two years about an employee's injury at a construction site, which constituted noncompliance with a condition precedent to coverage and vitiated the insurance contract. The plaintiff's claimed belief of nonliability, premised on the Workers' Compensation Law, was deemed unreasonable under the circumstances.

Summary JudgmentInsurance CoverageLate NoticeCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawConstruction AccidentIndemnity CoverageDefense CoverageAppellate AffirmationContract Vitiation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,883 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