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. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Purkey v. American Home Assurance Co.

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed three certified questions from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning the validity of household or family exclusion clauses in automobile insurance liability policies under Tennessee law and public policy. Petitioner Janice W. Purkey argued that these exclusions were void following amendments to the Tennessee Financial Responsibility Act and the abolition of intrafamily tort immunity. However, the Court referenced its prior consistent rulings upholding such clauses and emphasized Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-7-121, which explicitly permits contractual exclusions 'notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary.' The Court concluded that such exclusions do not violate Tennessee law or public policy, thereby answering the first certified question in the negative and declining to address the remaining questions.

Automobile InsuranceLiability CoverageHousehold Exclusion ClauseFamily Exclusion ClauseTennessee LawPublic PolicyFinancial Responsibility ActContract InterpretationIntrafamily Tort ImmunityCertified Questions
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Global Enercom Management, Inc.

This case addresses an insurance dispute between Global Enercom Management, Inc. and Mid-Continent Casualty Company concerning coverage for workers who died after a fall from a cell tower. The accident involved a rope-and-pulley system powered by a pickup truck. The court analyzed two insurance policy exclusions: an 'auto-use' exclusion and a 'subsequent-to-execution' clause. The Texas Supreme Court held that the 'auto-use' exclusion in the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy precluded coverage, reversing the appellate court's decision on this point. However, the court affirmed that the 'subsequent-to-execution' clause in both the CGL and Commercial Auto Policy (CAP) did not bar coverage, as the subcontract was considered 'executed' prior to the incident, despite Global's delayed signature.

Insurance CoverageAuto Use ExclusionSubsequent-to-Execution ClauseSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationCommercial General Liability PolicyCommercial Auto PolicyWorkers' CompensationCell Tower AccidentDeclaratory Judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lapolla Industries, Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by Lapolla Industries, Inc. against its insurers, Aspen Specialty Insurance Company and Aspen Specialty Insurance Management, Inc., seeking a declaration of coverage for an underlying personal injury lawsuit (Markey Lawsuit). The Markey Lawsuit alleges personal injury and property damage due to the 'off-gassing' of Lapolla's spray foam insulation. The insurers denied coverage citing pollution exclusion clauses in their policies. The court found a clear conflict between Texas and New York law regarding the interpretation of these clauses, with Texas law viewing them as unambiguous. Applying Texas law based on Lapolla's domicile and the worldwide coverage of the policies, the court concluded that the pollution exclusion clauses unambiguously bar coverage for the Markey Lawsuit claims, thus granting the insurers' motion to dismiss.

Insurance CoveragePollution Exclusion ClauseDeclaratory JudgmentChoice of LawConflict of LawsTexas LawNew York LawSpray Foam InsulationToxic ExposurePersonal Injury Litigation
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. NO. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2017

Noah S. Bunker Paul Carrell Everett Brew Houston, Jr. W. Andrew Buckholz Scott J. Leighty Jad L. Davis And Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

This case concerns an appeal from a declaratory summary judgment regarding a liquidated-damages provision. Appellee Tracy Strandhagen, a physician, sought to declare a $500,000 liquidated-damages clause in an operating agreement with her former medical practice group's advisory board (appellants) an unenforceable penalty. The trial court denied the appellants' plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Strandhagen. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, found that Strandhagen failed to conclusively prove the provision was an unreasonable forecast of just compensation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, while affirming that the claim was ripe for review.

Contract LawLiquidated DamagesSummary Judgment AppealDeclaratory JudgmentContract BreachEmployment AgreementOperating AgreementUnenforceable PenaltyRipeness DoctrineAppellate Review
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of North America v. Dayton Tool & Die Works, Inc.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Meyer challenges the majority's interpretation of an insurance policy exclusion clause concerning an insured's obligation to indemnify another for bodily injury to an employee. The majority concluded that an obligation by way of contribution is not excluded. Judge Meyer argues this interpretation is flawed, asserting that 'indemnify' in common parlance includes contribution, making the exclusion applicable. He maintains that the ordinary businessman would understand the clause to exclude such obligations, irrespective of legal distinctions between indemnity and contribution or the perceived ambiguity of 'indemnify'. Consequently, Judge Meyer would have reversed the order in the Dayton Tool case and affirmed in the County of St. Lawrence case, contrary to the majority's rulings.

Insurance Policy InterpretationIndemnity vs ContributionBodily Injury ExclusionEmployee LiabilityContractual InterpretationCommon Parlance of LawDissenting OpinionWorkers' CompensationLiability InsuranceInsurance Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North River Insurance Co. v. United National Insurance Co.

North River Insurance Company, having settled a worker's compensation claim for its insured, Summit Hoisting, sued United National Insurance Company for a declaration that United was obligated to defend and indemnify Summit. The core issue revolved around an exclusion clause in United's policy concerning "bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured or to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of such injury.” North River argued the indemnification clause was ambiguous. The court rejected this argument, finding the plain terms of the exclusion covered the liability United sought to exclude. Consequently, the Appellate Division's order was reversed, granting summary judgment to United National Insurance Company and dismissing North River's complaint.

Insurance Policy ExclusionWorker's CompensationGeneral Liability PolicyIndemnification ClauseSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewDeclaratory Judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McPhee v. General Electric International, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael G. McPhee initiated an action against Defendant General Electric International, Inc. for the wrongful death of his brother, Greg McPhee, which occurred in Israel in 2007. The core dispute centered on whether New York or Israeli law governed the case, specifically the enforceability and scope of a choice-of-law clause in the decedent's employment agreement. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that under New York law, the claims were barred by the exclusive Workers' Compensation remedy or were untimely. The Court found the choice-of-law clause, designating New York substantive law, to be enforceable due to the defendant's substantial connections to New York. Consequently, applying New York law, the Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, as workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy for unintentional injuries against employers. Plaintiff was given leave to file a proposed amended complaint to include claims regarding the failure to provide workers' compensation benefits.

Choice of LawContract DisputeEmployment LawWrongful DeathMotion to DismissNew York LawWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityInternational EmploymentForum Selection ClauseSubstantive Law
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 3,042 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