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. 01-10-01080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2013

DHL Express (USA), Inc. v. Falcon Express International, Inc.

Falcon Express International (Falcon) sued DHL Express (USA), Inc. (DHL) for rescission of an assignment and assumption agreement and punitive damages, alleging fraud by non-disclosure. Falcon claimed DHL failed to disclose its plans to exit the domestic package delivery market before Falcon assumed a third-party's debt and reseller agreement with DHL. DHL countersued for breach of contract. A jury awarded Falcon $1.7 million in rescission damages and $3.2 million in punitive damages, while awarding $0 to DHL on its counterclaim. DHL appealed, arguing Falcon's fraud claim was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) and Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), and that the $0 damages for its counterclaim were factually insufficient. The Court of Appeals agreed with DHL, reversing the trial court's judgment regarding Falcon's fraud claim and punitive damages, dismissing that claim, and remanding DHL's counterclaim for breach of contract for further proceedings.

Fraudulent InducementNon-disclosureBreach of ContractPreemptionAirline Deregulation ActFederal Aviation Administration Authorization ActAir CarrierMotor CarrierReseller AgreementPunitive Damages
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas D/B/A Bonded Builders Warranty Group, Daniel Avila, Grisele Edith Arizpe, and AA Builders, LLC v. Patricia Rockoff

Patricia Rockoff purchased a home from AA Builders, LLC, which included a warranty from Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas (BBWG). After discovering structural defects, Rockoff filed claims against both AA Builders and BBWG, subsequently initiating a lawsuit. Both AA Builders and BBWG moved to compel arbitration based on the warranty's terms, but the trial court denied these motions. On interlocutory appeal, the appellate court reversed, affirming the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. The court rejected arguments regarding the unconscionability of arbitrator selection and limitations on remedies, but remanded the case for the trial court to determine if the arbitration costs render the agreement substantively unconscionable after an arbitrator is appointed.

Interlocutory AppealArbitrationUnconscionabilityHome WarrantyConstruction DefectsFederal Arbitration ActTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActContract LawProcedural UnconscionabilitySubstantive Unconscionability
References
54
Case No. 13-22-00115-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Charles DeRouen, Individually and DeRouen Express Services LLC D/B/A JC Express Services v. Eddie Pridgen, Individually and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC

The appellants, Charles DeRouen (individually) and DeRouen Express Services LLC, appealed a no-answer default judgment in favor of Eddie Pridgen (individually) and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC. The appellate court vacated the trial court's amended default judgment from April 27, 2022, ruling that the trial court's plenary power had expired. The court reversed and remanded the original January 12, 2022 judgment concerning DeRouen individually due to ineffective substitute service. Furthermore, the claims brought by Pridgen Welding LLC were dismissed for lack of standing. However, the court affirmed the January 12, 2022 judgment against DeRouen Express Services LLC in favor of Pridgen, finding that the entity failed to establish a meritorious defense in its motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentSubstitute ServiceDue ProcessCorporate VeilStandingAppellate ProcedurePlenary PowerMotion for New TrialBreach of ContractContractual Dispute
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Express Corp. v. Dutschmann

Marcie Dutschmann, a former Federal Express employee, sued Federal Express for retaliatory discharge and breach of contract. A jury found that Federal Express terminated Dutschmann in retaliation for sexual harassment complaints and failed to exercise good faith in its Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure (GFTP) following her termination. Federal Express appealed the $89,000 judgment, raising five points related to sufficiency of evidence, contract formation from employee handbooks, breach of contract submission, good faith and fair dealing in employment, and attorney’s fees. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for retaliatory discharge and that Federal Express's GFTP created a contractual duty of good faith, which it breached by manipulating the review process.

Retaliatory DischargeSexual HarassmentEmployment ContractEmployee HandbookGood Faith and Fair DealingPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDue ProcessGrievance Procedure
References
27
Case No. 2016-06-0702
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2017

Willis, Earl Dwain v. Express Towing

In this interlocutory appeal, tow truck driver Earl Dwain Willis sought workers' compensation benefits for an ankle injury. The purported employer, Express Towing, contended it was exempt from statutory insurance requirements, claiming it employed fewer than five people. The trial court, presided over by Judge Joshua D. Baker, ruled that Express Towing and a related operation by Michael Copeland constituted a single business entity, employing at least five individuals, thus obligating Express Towing to provide coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence supported the finding of a unified business and the employment of five or more people, including Mr. Jarrell, triggering the workers' compensation insurance requirement. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEmployment LawIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationBusiness EntityInterlocutory AppealTowing ServicesSmall Business ExemptionCredibilityStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. 03-12-00144-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2013

FM Express Food Mart, Inc. and Fouad Hanna Mekdessi v. Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This case involves an appeal by FM Express Food Mart, Inc. and its shareholder Fouad Hanna Mekdessi against a summary judgment affirming a sales tax deficiency assessment by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. FM Express challenged the Comptroller's audit methodology, which used estimated sales figures due to the company's inadequate records, and also contested the constitutionality of Texas Tax Code provisions requiring prepayment of taxes for judicial review. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the Comptroller was authorized to estimate taxes when proper records were not kept and that FM Express failed to demonstrate the audit was unreasonable. The court declined to address the constitutional challenge, finding no actual injury to FM Express regarding the prepayment requirement.

Tax ProtestSales Tax AuditEstimated AssessmentInadequate RecordsConstitutional ChallengePrepayment RequirementsJudicial ReviewOpen Courts DoctrineSummary JudgmentTexas Tax Code
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Colin v. Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

The claimant, a for-hire driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident, naming Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc. and Yolette Kernisan as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claimant was an independent contractor of Express. On appeal, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the finding that the claimant was not an employee of Yolette Kernisan and remitting the matter for further consideration regarding Kernisan's relationship with the claimant, citing an improper control standard. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of no employment relationship with Express, supported by substantial evidence regarding drivers supplying their own vehicles and expenses, and ability to work for other companies.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceVehicle OwnershipControl TestRemittalAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PORT AUTHORITY OF NY AND NJ v. Allied Corp.

This Memorandum & Order addresses a motion to dismiss warranty claims in an action brought by plaintiffs against numerous asbestos product companies. Plaintiffs alleged various claims, including breach of express and implied warranties. Defendants sought dismissal of the warranty claims, asserting they were barred by the U.C.C. § 2-725 four-year statute of limitations and not revived by the "Toxic Tort Revival Act." The Court found that implied warranties could not meet the "explicit" future performance exception of U.C.C. § 2-725(2), and the alleged express warranties lacked explicit reference to future performance. Additionally, the Court ruled that the Toxic Tort Revival Act, intended for personal injury or property damage, did not apply to contract-based warranty claims. Equitable estoppel based on alleged active concealment was also rejected due to the absence of a fiduciary relationship or prevention of timely action. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth claims for breach of implied and express warranty was granted, while other tort claims remained for adjudication.

AsbestosBreach of WarrantyStatute of LimitationsUCCToxic Tort Revival ActEquitable EstoppelImplied WarrantyExpress WarrantyFuture Performance ExceptionProducts Liability
References
6
Case No. 01-00-00812-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2003

U.S. Tire-Tech, Inc./Custom Blending International v. Boeran, B v.

Boeran, a Dutch corporation, sued U.S. Tire-Tech, Inc. and Custom Blending International, Inc. (Tire-Tech) for breach of warranty related to a tire-liner product. A jury initially awarded Boeran damages, but the trial court only held Tire-Tech liable under the DTPA for breach of express warranty, not implied warranty. On appeal, Tire-Tech argued lack of privity and Boeran's failure to provide timely notice of breach. The appellate court held that privity of contract is not required for express warranty claims but agreed that Boeran failed to provide timely notice to Tire-Tech, a condition precedent for both express and implied warranty claims. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment, rendering a "take nothing" judgment against Boeran.

Breach of Express WarrantyBreach of Implied WarrantyPrivity of ContractNotice RequirementDeceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)Economic LossRemote ManufacturerCondition PrecedentJury Findings
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 822 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