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

In Re Handel

HSBC Bank USA objected to Joel M. Handel's exemptions of his interest in a profit-sharing plan and three life insurance policies in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. HSBC argued that Handel's actions, including unauthorized withdrawals and false representations as a trustee, violated the plan's terms, ERISA, and IRC Section 401(a), thereby rendering his interest non-exempt. The court acknowledged Handel's violations but, citing Patterson v. Shumate, ruled that an anti-alienation provision enforceable under ERISA excludes the plan interest from the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of operational compliance or tax-qualified status. Additionally, the court found Handel adequately identified the life insurance policies. Consequently, HSBC's motion was denied, preserving Handel's exemptions.

BankruptcyERISAPension PlanExemptionAnti-alienationDebtor's EstateIRC 401(a)Life InsuranceDebtor's ConductFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1995

In Re Minor

The court consolidated two Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, In re Minor and In re Mills, concerning objections by the Chapter 13 Trustee to the debtors' claims of exemption for lump-sum workers' compensation benefits. Debtors Kevin S. Minor, Angela D. Minor, and Martin Blaine Mills had received these settlements post-confirmation and sought to exempt them under Tennessee law. The primary issues resolved by Chief Judge Richard S. Stair, Jr. were whether these awards constituted property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1306(a) and whether they should be included as "disposable income" for plan confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1325(b)(2). The court held that workers' compensation awards are indeed property of the estate and, despite state law exemptions, must be included in the calculation of disposable income to be applied to the Chapter 13 plan, to the extent not reasonably necessary for the debtors' support or business operations. Consequently, the Trustee's objection to amended exemptions was sustained in part, affirming that the benefits are property of the estate and disposable income, but overruled in part as debtors could still claim exemption under state law.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationExemptionsDisposable IncomeProperty of EstatePost-Confirmation ModificationBankruptcy CodeTennessee LawLump Sum SettlementStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. 03-15-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2015

California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.

The appellants, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA), and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), collectively "Guaranty Associations," are appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee, Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ("Hill Bros."). The suit was filed on March 31, 2009, alleging Hill Bros. failed to reimburse the Guaranty Associations for payments of workers' compensation benefits and claim handling expenses within the deductible limits of a policy issued by the insolvent Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Hill Bros. based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the cause of action accrued on April 1, 2002. The Guaranty Associations argue that the accrual date is incorrect, as their statutory obligations had not been triggered, payments had not been made, and demand for reimbursement had not occurred by that date. They also contend that their compliance with Pennsylvania law (the "Pennsylvania Act") in seeking reimbursement through Legion in Liquidation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for any delay, making reasonableness a fact question. Furthermore, they assert the policy was a continuing contract, and the statute of limitations should not have accrued until full performance on April 28, 2009. Alternatively, they argue that claims for deductible payments made within four years of filing suit (March 31, 2005) are not barred.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty AssociationStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeductible ReimbursementInsolvencyInsurance PolicyContinuing ContractPennsylvania ActTravis County
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. 131 AD3d 553
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2015

Assevero v. Hamilton & Church Properties, LLC

Hugo Assevero was injured falling from an unsecured ladder while working on a building renovation project owned by Hamilton & Church Properties, LLC. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law sections, and Hamilton initiated a third-party action against Castle Construction Group. The Supreme Court initially granted Hamilton's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims based on the homeowner's exemption. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the building did not qualify for the homeowner's exemption due to its mixed commercial and multi-residential use. Consequently, Hamilton's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Assevero's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and Castle's cross-motion for summary judgment on indemnification claims.

Labor LawHomeowner's ExemptionSummary Judgment MotionLadder FallConstruction AccidentPersonal Injury ClaimCorporate Property OwnershipContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationThird-Party Litigation
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2001

In Re Dibiase

The case involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor, Gregory Dibiase, and trustee Helen G. Schwartz. The central issue is the exemptability and turnover of employee stock options granted to Dibiase by Tesoro Petroleum Corporation. Dibiase claimed the options as exempt under the federal "wild card" provision, valuing them at zero. The trustee objected, arguing the options had value and were property of the estate. The court rejected Dibiase's argument that the options had not "vested" and therefore had no value, asserting that Texas law recognizes stock options as present property interests even if subject to future contingencies. The court also rejected the Allen allocation formula, which sought to exclude a portion of the options based on post-petition efforts, finding it legally flawed. Ultimately, the court sustained the trustee's objection to exemptions, concluding the entire option belonged to the estate, but granted turnover only for the proportion the trustee had specifically pleaded for.

BankruptcyStock OptionsExemptionsTurnoverProperty of the EstateWild Card ExemptionVested RightsConditions PrecedentConditions SubsequentChapter 7
References
38
Case No. 03-07-00240-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2008

Myrad Properties, Inc. v. Lasalle Bank National Ass'n

Myrad Properties, Inc. appealed a summary judgment concerning the non-judicial foreclosure of two apartment complexes, La Casa and Casa Grande, secured by a single note. The central dispute involved an error in the foreclosure notice that only described one property. The court determined that despite the inconsistency, references to the Deed of Trust provided sufficient notice for both properties. The lower court's judgment, affirming the conveyance of both properties and the validity of the correction deed, was largely upheld. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the claim for a surplus due to Myrad, citing unresolved fact issues regarding the calculation of Myrad's outstanding debt.

ForeclosureNon-judicial foreclosureDeed of TrustProperty description errorSummary judgmentReal propertyApartment complexesSubstitute trusteeNotice of saleCorrection deed
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 3,106 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