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

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. 01-19-00852-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2021

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

This case involves two related appeals concerning insurance coverage for bodily injury claims against Exxon Mobil Corporation by its contractor's employees, Kevin Roberts and Arturo Munoz. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. challenged a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Exxon and Starr Indemnity and Liability Insurance Company, arguing its umbrella policy did not provide coverage beyond its CGL policy, as dictated by the Exxon-Savage Contract. Exxon also challenged a summary judgment favoring Starr. The appeals court reversed the judgment against National Union, finding that 'Commercial General Liability insurance' in the contract referred only to primary coverage, not umbrella or excess policies. Consequently, Exxon was not entitled to coverage under National Union's umbrella policy. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Starr, as its bumbershoot policy was also considered an umbrella policy. The case was remanded for reconsideration of attorney's fees and costs.

Insurance Policy InterpretationCommercial General LiabilityUmbrella Liability InsuranceExcess Liability InsuranceAdditional Insured EndorsementSummary Judgment ReviewBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury Claims
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oneida Ltd. v. Utica Mutual Insurance

Oneida Ltd., a self-insured employer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against its insurers, Utica Mutual and Republic Western, to determine liability for a substantial claim arising from a workplace accident involving the Ketchum brothers. The core dispute centered on whether Republic Western's excess workers' compensation policy, designed for self-insureds, was legally mandated to provide unlimited employer's liability coverage, or if its stated $1,000,000 limit was valid. Oneida Ltd. argued for the validity of the limit, which would then obligate Utica Mutual's $10,000,000 umbrella policy for the excess. Utica Mutual contended that employer's liability coverage must be unlimited in New York and that its policy disclaimed such coverage. The court ultimately sided with Oneida Ltd. and Republic Western, ruling that excess reinsurance policies for self-insured employers are not required to provide unlimited employer's liability coverage, thus upholding Republic Western's $1,000,000 limit. The court also found that Utica Mutual's policy did not effectively disclaim coverage, making it liable for amounts exceeding Republic Western's limit.

Insurance Policy DisputeDeclaratory ReliefEmployer Liability InsuranceExcess CoverageUmbrella LiabilitySelf-Insurance RegulationsInsurance Contract InterpretationThird-Party IndemnificationRegulatory Agency InterpretationSummary Judgment Motion
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor Service Company v. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association

Taylor Service Company appealed a trial-court judgment denying its suit against the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association. Taylor had purchased primary and excess liability insurance policies from COMCO Insurance Company, which subsequently became an impaired insurer. The Association paid Taylor the statutory limit of $100,000 under the primary policy but refused payment under the excess policy. Taylor argued the excess policy was ambiguous and required an additional $100,000 payment due to the underlying insurer's insolvency. The trial court found no coverage under the excess policy. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the excess policy's insolvency provision was unambiguous and did not mandate "drop-down" coverage to the amount actually paid, maintaining the initial one-million dollar threshold for excess liability.

Insurance lawExcess policyPrimary policyInsolvencyGuaranty AssociationDrop-down coverageContract interpretationAmbiguityTexas lawDeclaratory relief
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2007

Sorbara Construction Corp. v. AIU Insurance

This case involves an insured plaintiff's appeal regarding a delay in notifying their excess insurer about an employee's accident and subsequent personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff failed to notify the defendant excess insurer for approximately 5 1/2 years. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant insurer's cross-motion, thereby absolving the insurer of any obligation to defend or indemnify the plaintiff. The appellate court affirmed this decision, emphasizing that timely notice is a condition precedent for liability insurance policies and an insured's good-faith belief in non-liability requires a prior inquiry into potential liability. Furthermore, the court clarified that an insurer's knowledge from other sources or notice under a workers' compensation policy does not fulfill the insured's obligation to provide direct notice under a liability policy.

Liability insuranceTimely noticeCondition precedentSummary judgmentPersonal injuryExcess insurerNon-complianceGood-faith beliefNon-liabilityWorkers' Compensation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Novell v. Carney Electric Construction Corp.

Plaintiff David Novell was injured on a construction site when his left leg was caught in a hoist rope while using a Greenlee cable-puller. The building was owned by MRI Broadway Rental, Inc., and Mordall Realty, with J.C. Penny, Inc. as a lessee, who hired James King & Son, Inc. as the general contractor. King subcontracted electrical work to Carney Electric Construction Corp. and Carneco, Inc., plaintiff's employer. The jury found Carney liable under Labor Law § 240(1) and awarded substantial damages, apportioning 45% liability to Carney. Carney moved to set aside the verdict, arguing the statute was inapplicable, it bore no liability as a subcontractor, and the damages were excessive. The court affirmed the applicability of Labor Law § 240(1) to the accident and the subcontractor's liability, but found the jury's damage awards to David and Linda Novell excessive, granting a new trial on damages unless they stipulated to reduced amounts.

Construction AccidentLabor Law Section 240Subcontractor LiabilityHoist Rope InjuryCable-Puller AccidentWorkers' Compensation DefenseAlter Ego DoctrineExcessive DamagesPersonal InjuryJury Verdict
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terminix International Co. v. Tennessee Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

This case involves an appeal by the Tennessee Insurance Guaranty Association (TIGA) against a judgment in favor of The Terminix International Company Limited Partnership (Terminix). The dispute arose from two claims, the Manning Claim and the Yoo Claim, where Terminix sought recovery after its excess liability insurer, Integrity Insurance Company, became insolvent. Home Insurance Company, the primary insurer, paid its policy limits, and Terminix covered the remaining amounts. TIGA denied Terminix's claims, arguing that since Integrity was an excess insurer, actual medical expenses and lost wages had been paid by the primary carrier. The trial court sided with Terminix, interpreting the Tennessee Insurance Guaranty Association Act to include future medical expenses and lost wages. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, asserting that the Act's language, 'expenses incurred' and 'wages actually lost,' refers only to past, quantifiable liabilities, not projected future costs, and that TIGA's obligations are strictly defined by the Act, independent of broader liability policy terms.

insurance guarantyinsolvent insurerexcess liability insurancecovered claimmedical expenseslost wagesstatutory interpretationTennessee Insurance Guaranty Association Actappellate courtinsurance insolvency
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anzaldua v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Esther Anzaldua against American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, the compensation carrier. Anzaldua was injured on the job and sued after rejecting an award from the Texas Industrial Accident Board. A jury awarded her damages for partial incapacity and medical expenses, but Anzaldua appealed, alleging the medical award was insufficient, that certain medical reports were improperly admitted due to hearsay, and that a supplemental jury charge was coercive. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the jury's verdict supported by evidence, the medical reports properly admitted, and the supplemental charge not coercive.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesJury VerdictEvidence AdmissibilitySupplemental Jury ChargeCoercionIncapacityAppealTexas LawInsurance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. White

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appealed a worker’s compensation judgment concerning Ira Gillis White, who sustained a back injury. A jury found White totally incapacitated for three months and permanently partially incapacitated thereafter, establishing his weekly earning capacity at $150 during the partial incapacity period. Electric Mutual contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of White’s pre-injury wages and that the jury’s finding on earning capacity was unsupported or against the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining that worker’s compensation aims to compensate for loss of earning capacity, not just actual wages, and that post-injury earnings do not conclusively prove capacity. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's assessment of White's diminished earning capacity, considering his pain and physical limitations despite continued employment.

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,781 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