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. M2009-00731-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2009

Renee L. Johnson v. Grayson Rowsell

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit where the plaintiff, Renee L. Johnson, appealed a summary judgment granted to the defendant, Express Courier International, Inc. (ECI). Johnson alleged ECI was liable for the negligent acts of its driver, Grayson Rowsell. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Rowsell was an independent contractor and that no exceptions to employer non-liability applied. The decision analyzed factors for determining independent contractor status and various exceptions to non-liability, ultimately finding ECI not liable for Rowsell's actions.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryIndependent ContractorEmployer LiabilityNegligenceVicarious LiabilityAppelleeAppellantDelivery CompanyDrug Testing Policy
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifth Club, Inc. v. Ramirez

This concurring opinion by Justice Brister, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, elaborates on why the Texas Supreme Court rejects adopting a blanket rule from *Dupree v. Piggly Wiggly Shop Rite Foods, Inc.* regarding employer liability for independent contractors in security services. The opinion discusses existing exceptions to the general rule that employers are not liable for independent contractors' actions, including retained control, statutory duties, and inherently dangerous work. It argues against a new 'personal character' exception for security services due to sufficient public safety protections under current laws, the unclear boundaries of such an exception, the varied circumstances of hiring security, the non-delegable duties of peace officers, and the multiple considerations in choosing independent contractors beyond avoiding vicarious liability.

Independent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityEmployer ResponsibilitySecurity ContractorNon-delegable DutyRestatement of TortsTexas LawTort ExceptionsCommon Law DevelopmentJudicial Restraint
References
17
Case No. 587-14
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2018

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. 21st Century Constr. Corp.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initiated a collection action against former members of the ELITE Contractors Trust of New York (ELITE), a group self-insured trust. The WCB sought partial summary judgment on the issue of joint and several liability for the trust's deficit, default judgments against non-appearing defendants, and discontinuance against settling defendants. Defendants raised various arguments, including the trust's alleged invalid formation, claims of unconstitutional taking, expiration of the statute of limitations, and untimely deficit assessments. The court ultimately granted the WCB's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against most defendants, affirmed the contractual and statutory basis for joint and several liability, and granted default judgments against non-appearing parties. Most of the defendants' cross-motions seeking dismissal were denied, with one exception regarding a dissolved LLC for which discovery was deemed necessary.

Workers' Compensation TrustJoint and Several LiabilityDeficit AssessmentGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Summary JudgmentDefault JudgmentStatute of LimitationsUnconstitutional TakingTrust AdministrationEmployer Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wheeler v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin

This case concerns an appeal filed by Cecil Wheeler, as guardian for Edward N. Prince, Jr., challenging an order from the Shelby County District Court. The lower court had denied Prince's motion for summary judgment and abated his lawsuit, which sought to mature a worker's compensation award from the Industrial Accident Board. This action was taken pending the final determination of a prior suit filed by the insurance carrier, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, in Madison County to set aside the same IAB award. Employers Mutual moved to dismiss the current appeal, arguing the Shelby County order was interlocutory and non-appealable. The appellate court affirmed, stating that a court's authority to abate an action on its own motion does not render the order void, especially when made aware of a prior pending suit with identical parties and issues. The court also reiterated that interlocutory appeals from orders denying summary judgment are prohibited in Texas, thus dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Interlocutory OrderSummary Judgment DenialAbatement of ActionJurisdiction DisputeWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppeal DismissalMultiplicity of SuitsPrior Pending ActionDominant JurisdictionTexas Civil Procedure
References
5
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 1994

New York County Data Entry Worker Product Liability Litigation v. A.B. Dick Co.

In the case of Hulse v. A.B. Dick Co., a products liability action concerning repetitive stress injury, the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order preventing the preverdict disclosure of settlement materials to non-settling defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that the settlement materials were not 'material and necessary' to the defense, with the exception of the settlement amount for post-verdict apportionment under General Obligations Law § 15-108. The court also rejected the arguments that the materials were useful for assessing settlement exposure or impeachment, deeming such uses speculative. Finally, the court found no merit in the argument that settlement proceeds constituted a collateral source under CPLR 4545 (c).

Products LiabilityRepetitive Stress InjuryProtective OrderSettlement AgreementConfidentialityDiscoveryApportionmentCollateral Source RuleImpeachmentTrial Strategy
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. McDonald

This declaratory judgment action involves American Home Assurance Company seeking to limit its liability under professional liability policies issued to social workers Rory M. McDonald and Helene Ina Anisfeld, who are defendants in an underlying malpractice action brought by Randy Kamhi. Kamhi alleges sexual misconduct and professional negligence against McDonald, and vicarious liability and direct negligence against Anisfeld as McDonald's partner. American Home sought summary judgment to limit indemnification to $25,000 for sexual misconduct claims and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment in part, affirming the $25,000 limit for McDonald's sexual misconduct and for punitive damages for both McDonald and Anisfeld. However, the court denied the request to terminate American Home's duty to defend McDonald upon exhausting the $25,000 limit and granted Kamhi's cross-motion to stay further summary judgment applications until discovery in the underlying action is complete. Crucially, the court found that extending the sexual misconduct coverage limit to non-sexual malpractice claims violates New York public policy.

Professional Liability InsuranceSexual MisconductInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic Policy ArgumentTherapist MalpracticeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyUnconscionability Claim
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. United Parcel Service

The case addresses a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee concerning individual liability under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Plaintiff Kelly Carr alleged sexual harassment against her employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), and three UPS employees. The individual defendants moved for judgment, arguing they could not be held individually liable. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the THRA's 'agent of an employer' language does not impose individual liability, aligning with federal interpretations of Title VII. While the THRA provides for accomplice liability for individuals who aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer's discriminatory practice, the Court found no evidence under the certified facts to hold the non-supervisory and supervisory defendants individually liable for either co-worker harassment or supervisor-created hostile work environment, as their actions did not constitute aiding and abetting the employer's failure to take remedial action.

Sexual HarassmentTennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Individual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTitle VIICertified Question of LawRespondeat SuperiorAiding and AbettingHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Technologies Communications Co. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3

This case involves a damage action brought by United Technologies Communication Company (UTCC), formerly General Dynamics Communications Company (GDCC), against Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), under Section 303 of the National Labor Relations Act. UTCC alleged that Local 3 engaged in illegal secondary boycotts and jurisdictional disputes at two New York City sites, One Broadway and Two Broadway, in violation of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. The court found Local 3 liable, concluding that its members, agents, and executive board supported and ratified unlawful actions, including work stoppages, threats, vandalism, and harassment, aimed at forcing employers to cease business with GDCC and assign work to Local 3 members. While liability was established, the plaintiff's claim for lost sales to potential customers was denied due to insufficient proof of direct causation. The decision concludes the liability phase of the trial, with a second phase to be scheduled for the determination of damages.

Labor Law ViolationSecondary BoycottJurisdictional DisputeNational Labor Relations ActTaft-Hartley ActUnion LiabilityAgency PrinciplesCollateral EstoppelDamage ActionNon-Jury Trial
References
45
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07851
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2020

Bodlovic v. Giannoutsos

Miodrag Bodlovic, a plaintiff, sustained personal injuries while working for Gigi Salon & Spa due to a malfunctioning rollup gate. He and his wife sued the premises owners, Frank Giannoutsos, Paraskevi Giannoutsos, and Vasiliki Giannoutsos, alleging negligence. The Giannoutsos defendants, named as additional insureds on Gigi Salon's commercial general liability policy with United States Liability Insurance Company (USLIC), sought a declaration that USLIC was obligated to defend and indemnify them. USLIC moved for summary judgment, arguing a bodily injury exclusion in its policy precluded coverage. However, the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied this motion, finding an exception to the exclusion for liability assumed under an 'insured contract,' which in this case was the lease agreement between Gigi Salon and the Giannoutsos defendants. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that USLIC failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the defendants were not entitled to coverage.

Insurance policyAdditional insuredSummary judgmentBodily injury exclusionInsured contractLease agreementIndemnificationAppellate reviewCoverage disputePremises liability
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 9,321 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