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
May 17, 2011

Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions, Inc. v. Essex Insurance

Plaintiff Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions commenced a declaratory judgment action against Defendant Essex Insurance Company, seeking an order to defend and indemnify Avrio in a personal injury action. Essex filed a motion to dismiss, which was converted to a motion for summary judgment. The court addressed two main exclusions: the Completed Operations Exclusion and the Contractual Liability Exclusion. The court found a potentiality of coverage under the Completed Operations Exclusion due to ambiguities in the term "intended use" and unresolved factual issues regarding the completion of work, denying summary judgment on this ground. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Essex regarding the Contractual Liability Exclusion, as the subcontract did not qualify as an "insured contract" under the policy's specific definition in effect at the time of the incident, and Avrio was presumed to have agreed to these terms. The case will proceed to an evidentiary hearing on the Completed Operations Exclusion.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContractual Liability ExclusionCompleted Operations ExclusionInsurance Policy InterpretationChoice of LawMaryland Contract LawFederal Civil ProcedureDuty to Defend
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Texaco Inc.

Texaco Inc. and its two subsidiaries, Texaco Capital Inc. and Texaco Capital N.V., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Texaco sought to extend the exclusive periods for filing a reorganization plan, citing the massive size of the case, over 300,000 creditors, and the pending appeal of a $10.3 billion judgment against it by Pennzoil Company. Pennzoil, a leading general unsecured creditor, moved to reduce these exclusivity periods to propose its own creditor's plan. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Howard Schwartzberg, considered the unprecedented size and complexity of Texaco's bankruptcy case, which is the largest ever filed in the U.S., and the unresolved multi-billion dollar Pennzoil judgment. The court found that Texaco had established sufficient cause for an extension, while Pennzoil failed to demonstrate cause for reduction. Consequently, Texaco's motion to extend the exclusivity periods by another 120 and 180 days was granted, and Pennzoil's motion to shorten them was denied.

BankruptcyChapter 11Exclusivity PeriodPlan of ReorganizationCorporate DebtorsComplex LitigationDebtor-Creditor DisputeJudgment AppealSouthern District of New YorkCorporate Restructuring
References
12
Case No. 02-20-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Emiliano Medrano v. Kerry Ingredients & Flavours, Inc.

Emiliano Medrano sued his employer, Kerry Ingredients & Flavours, Inc., for personal injuries sustained when his hand became caught in a conveyor belt, resulting in the loss of his ring finger. Medrano alleged negligence and gross negligence. Kerry filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that Medrano’s injury was barred by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision. The trial court granted the plea and dismissed Medrano’s suit without prejudice. On appeal, the Court of Appeals clarified that the Division of Workers’ Compensation does not have exclusive jurisdiction over personal injury suits that merely touch on workers’ compensation issues. The court emphasized that the exclusive-remedy defense is an affirmative defense, typically addressed via summary judgment, not a plea to the jurisdiction. Given that the dismissal was without prejudice and lacked the evidentiary basis for a summary-judgment review, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryExclusive RemedyPlea to the JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureNegligenceGross NegligenceTexas Labor LawReversed and RemandedAffirmative DefenseSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
36
Case No. 01-42217-REG
Regular Panel Decision

Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.)

This document is a report and recommendation from Judge Robert E. Gerber concerning Ames Department Stores, Inc.'s motion to confirm exclusive jurisdiction in an adversary proceeding against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The proceeding, occurring under Ames' Chapter 11 bankruptcy, addresses the ownership of an $8 million trust account and alleged interference with the debtor's property. Judge Gerber recommends that the court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over all claims, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over specific claims involving automatic stay violations, marshaling, and equitable subordination. Furthermore, he advises that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not mandate deferral to an Illinois state court for these issues, and the First Assuming Jurisdiction Doctrine is applicable to certain in rem claims.

Bankruptcy LawJurisdictional DisputeExclusive JurisdictionAutomatic Stay ViolationMcCarran-Ferguson ActIn Rem JurisdictionAdversary ProceedingChapter 11 BankruptcySurety BondsCash Collateral
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mournet v. Educational & Cultural Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry

The plaintiff was injured after slipping and falling at premises owned by the Educational and Cultural Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry (ECT), where her employer, Prudential Recreation Corp., doing business as JIB Lanes (JIB), leased space. The plaintiff sued both ECT and JIB. ECT asserted an affirmative defense that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy, claiming it was an alter ego of JIB. ECT moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against it, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6), (17). The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that ECT failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, particularly regarding JIB’s control over ECT’s day-to-day operations. Further discovery was also deemed warranted due to ECT's exclusive knowledge of some facts.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrinePersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewDiscoveryPrima Facie EntitlementEmployer LiabilityRelated Entities
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2009

Goode v. Woodside

The plaintiff sued co-employee Scheniqua L. Woodside and Karl L. Abbadessa for personal injuries sustained in a car accident. The plaintiff and Woodside were traveling to a mandatory staff meeting in Woodside's car after returning a company bus, indicating they were co-employees acting within the scope of their employment. The plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits for his injury. Woodside moved for summary judgment dismissal, arguing the action against her was barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions. The Supreme Court denied her motion, but the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to Woodside because the plaintiff's action was barred by co-employee exclusivity and he did not suffer a 'grave injury.'

Workers' Compensation LawExclusivity provisionsCo-employee liabilitySummary judgmentPersonal injuryCar accidentScope of employmentGrave injuryAppellate reviewReversal of order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hector Garza v. Zachry Construction Corporation, Zachry Industrial, Inc., Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez

Hector Garza, a DuPont operator, was injured in a railcar accident involving Zachry Construction Corp. employees, Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez. Garza received workers' compensation benefits from DuPont and subsequently sued Zachry, Morales, and Rodriguez for negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Garza's claims were barred by the workers' compensation exclusive remedy under Texas Labor Code section 408.001, which applies to subcontractors via section 406.128. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment. On appeal, Garza argued that Zachry's employees were not DuPont's "deemed employees" for exclusive remedy purposes and that applying the bar violated the Texas Constitution's open courts provision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the contract between DuPont and Zachry did not negate the "deemed employer" status for workers' compensation purposes and that the workers' compensation benefits constituted an adequate quid pro quo for the relinquishment of common-law claims, thus not violating the open courts guarantee.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityExclusive Remedy BarSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Open Courts ProvisionLabor Code InterpretationSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimsDeemed Employer StatusFellow Employee DoctrineContractual Agreement
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2012

Vasquez v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

Plaintiff Theresa Vasquez brought this action against defendant Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation after her husband, David Vasquez, died during the course of his employment at a building managed by defendant. David Vasquez fell to his death from an exhaust duct after climbing out of a scissor lift while attempting to replace ceiling tiles. The plaintiff alleged defendant was liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide proper safety devices. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim and also moved for summary judgment arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the order was modified to grant plaintiff conditional partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss based on the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provision, citing outstanding questions of fact regarding defendant's status as a special employer.

Labor LawScissor Lift AccidentFall from HeightWorksite SafetySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial EmployerStrict LiabilityProximate CauseSafety Devices
References
5
Case No. W2014-00518-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2015

State of Tennessee v. Kenon Pack and Jennifer Banks

Defendants Kenon Pack and Jennifer Banks appealed their convictions for aggravated child abuse in Shelby County, Tennessee. The charges stemmed from severe injuries inflicted upon Banks's five-year-old daughter, including life-threatening bruises and tissue necrosis from repeated whippings with homemade paddles. Both defendants challenged the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and evidentiary rulings regarding prior acts and medical records. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that a rational jury could find both defendants criminally responsible, either as direct perpetrators or as accomplices, and that evidentiary exclusions/admissions were not reversible errors.

Aggravated Child AbuseChild MaltreatmentBlunt Force TraumaCriminal ResponsibilitySufficiency of EvidenceHearsay RuleBusiness Records ExceptionMedical Records AdmissibilityPrior Bad Acts EvidenceDomestic Violence
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 2,902 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