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. 21-0676
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2024

Steve Huynh, Individually Yvonne Huynh, Individually Huynh Poultry Farm, LLC D/B/A Steve Thi Huynh Poultry Farm D/B/A Huynh Poultry Farm T & N Poultry Farm, LLC Thinh Bao Nguyen, Individually Timmy Huynh Poultry Farm Timmy Huynh, Individually And Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Frank Blanchard, Angelia Snow, Tanya Berry, Kimberly Riley, John Miller, Amy Miller, Chad Martinez, Emily Martinez, Mersini Blanchard, Malakoff Properties, LLC, and Ronny Snow

This case originated from a nuisance suit brought by neighbors against two large poultry farms in Henderson County, Texas, operated by the Huynh family and Sanderson Farms, Inc. The neighbors alleged persistent, offensive odors constituting a nuisance. A jury initially found a temporary nuisance, leading the trial court to issue a permanent injunction that effectively shut down the farms. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the entitlement to permanent injunctive relief, agreeing that harm was imminent and legal remedies inadequate. However, it reversed the trial court's injunction in part, finding it overly broad for completely halting operations and imposing a wide geographic ban, and remanded the case for a more tailored injunction.

Nuisance LawPoultry FarmingEnvironmental RegulationsInjunctive ReliefProperty RightsOdor NuisanceTemporary NuisancePermanent NuisanceBalancing EquitiesJudicial Discretion
References
108
Case No. 13-15-00098-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

Hudson Insurance Company v. Bruce Gamble Farms, Jim Gamble Farms, Brian Jones Farms, & Crop Guard Group, Inc.

The case involves an appeal regarding a trial court's denial of Hudson Insurance Company's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs, Bruce Gamble Farms, Jim Gamble Farms, and Brian Jones Farms, sued Hudson and CropGuard Group, Inc., alleging overcharged crop insurance premiums for Crop Year 2013. The appellees argue that a valid and conscionable arbitration agreement did not exist, citing non-receipt of the policy, unconscionable terms like a shortened statute of limitations, and the dispute falling outside the arbitration clause's scope as it pertains to policy or procedure interpretation rather than claims for loss. The brief advocates for upholding the trial court's decision.

Crop InsuranceArbitrationContract DisputeUnconscionabilityAppellate ReviewInsurance PremiumsTexas LawFederal Arbitration ActMotion to CompelCivil Procedure
References
36
Case No. No. 11-12-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Alfred Elwess v. Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas and Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

Alfred Elwess, injured in an auto accident, sought to recover under his underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas and Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Appellees). The Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Elwess failed to obtain permission to settle with the tortfeasor and that his damages were covered by workers' compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellees. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence that Elwess's failure to obtain permission materially prejudiced the Appellees' subrogation rights and that his damages were payable under workers' compensation, especially since his employer did not have such coverage. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentUnderinsured Motorist (UIM)Insurance Coverage DisputeSettlement Without Consent ExclusionSubrogation RightsWorkers' Compensation ExclusionMaterial BreachActual PrejudiceAppellate ReviewDe Novo Review
References
7
Case No. No. 10-12-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 2013

Brian Dunn, Janel Dunn and Leisel Moseley v. Happy Hill Farm Academy/Home and Happy Hill Farm Children's Home Endowment Fund, Happy Hill Farm Children Home, Inc., A/K/A Dallas Cowboys Courage House

Appellants Leisel Moseley, Brian Dunn, and Janel Dunn appealed a summary judgment favoring Happy Hill Farm Academy/Home and related entities. They claimed wrongful termination, alleging Happy Hill Farm operates as a treatment or mental-health facility under the Texas Health and Safety Code, and contested the applicability of statutory exemptions. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Happy Hill Farm is neither a treatment nor a mental-health facility, but a basic child care facility with a school. Furthermore, the court found Happy Hill Farm exempt from former Chapter 242 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, as it operates under the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, a recognized state agency.

Summary judgmentWrongful terminationTexas Health and Safety CodeMental health facilityTreatment facilityBoarding schoolState agency exemptionEmployment at willRetaliatory dischargeMedical misconduct
References
17
Case No. 03-98-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms/Accord Agriculture, Inc. v. Accord Agriculture, Inc./Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms

Accord Agriculture, Inc. (Accord) initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), challenging the validity of rules established for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Accord contended that the TNRCC failed to meet the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) reasoned justification requirement and exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating these rules. The trial court invalidated the CAFO rules due to the lack of reasoned justification but dismissed Accord's claims regarding a 'takings' violation and the constitutionality of the Right to Farm Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the CAFO rules and the dismissal of the 'takings' claim. However, it reversed the dismissal of Accord's challenge to the Right to Farm Act, remanding that specific issue for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActReasoned JustificationConcentrated Animal Feeding OperationsEnvironmental RegulationWater QualityAir QualityDeclaratory JudgmentStandingTakings ClaimRight to Farm Act
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies v. Brooks

This action arises from an alleged overpayment of no-fault benefits by State Farm to James Brooks. Brooks, injured in an automobile accident, received lost earnings benefits from State Farm, but was later furloughed from his job due to lack of work, not his injury, yet continued to receive full benefits. State Farm sought to recover the alleged overpayment, arguing an insurance regulation (11 NYCRR 65.6 (n) (2) (vi)) required a reduction to unemployment benefits if the position would have been lost regardless of the accident. The court, in a case of first impression, found this regulation invalid as applied to Brooks, conflicting with the Insurance Law's purpose of compensating for actual economic loss. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant, James Brooks.

No-fault insuranceAutomobile accidentOverpayment of benefitsLost earningsUnemployment benefitsInsurance Law interpretationSummary judgmentStatutory conflictRegulation validityEconomic loss
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Bohls

Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company initiated a declaratory judgment suit to ascertain the coverage of an automobile liability insurance policy issued to Jesse G. Bohls, specifically concerning claims by farm laborers injured in an August 10, 1955 accident. The core issue revolved around an exclusion clause for employee injuries, which the Texas Board of Insurance Commissioners had revised. The Court had to determine if the farm laborers, Dorothy Isaac and Roxie Burr, were 'engaged in the employment' of Bohls at the time of the accident, as they were being transported home after work. Citing previous judicial interpretations, the court concluded that the laborers were not actively performing services for Bohls during their transportation. Consequently, the insurance policy was found to provide coverage for their claims, affirming the Trial Court's judgment in favor of the defendants.

Automobile liability insuranceInsurance policy coverageFarm laborersEmployee exclusion clauseDeclaratory judgmentScope of employmentTransportation of employeesWorkers' compensation lawTexas insurance lawInterpretation of insurance policy
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caserotti v. State Farm Insurance

Nancy Ray Caserotti appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of State Farm Insurance Company. The case stemmed from an automobile accident where Nancy, insured by State Farm, was injured by David, also insured by State Farm. Initially, David claimed fault, leading to a $100 settlement check to Nancy, which she later disputed as a full release. Nancy subsequently sued David, leading to a default judgment, then a new trial where State Farm defended David using the release. Nancy then sued State Farm, alleging violations of the DTPA, breach of fiduciary duty, and bad faith. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that State Farm did not owe Nancy, as a third-party claimant under David's policy, a fiduciary duty or a duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Summary JudgmentAutomobile AccidentInsurance LawFiduciary DutyGood Faith and Fair DealingDeceptive Trade Practices ActThird-Party ClaimInsurance ReleaseAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
17
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01944 [226 AD3d 836]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2024

Ragusa v. Drazie's Farm II, LLC

The plaintiff, Matthew Ragusa, appealed an order denying his cross-motion to amend the complaint to add Drazie's Farm, LLC as a defendant and granting summary judgment to Drazie's Farm II, LLC on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the relation-back doctrine did not apply because Drazie's Farm II, LLC and Drazie's Farm, LLC were separate entities with potentially different defenses, thus not united in interest. Furthermore, Drazie's Farm II, LLC established that it did not own the property where the accident occurred and therefore could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)A-frame ladderfall from heightpremises liabilityrelation-back doctrinesummary judgmentlimited liability companyproperty ownershipadjoining properties
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Conn

This appeal concerns State Farm's challenge to a trial court's award of uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits to Appellees under an automobile liability insurance policy. Sherrie Ann Conn, a passenger, was killed in an accident caused by Stephanie Ann Laux, whose vehicle was insured by State Farm. Appellees received liability benefits from State Farm and UM/UIM benefits from Conn's separate Allstate policy. Appellees then sought additional UM/UIM benefits from the Laux policy, which State Farm denied based on an exclusion for vehicles owned by or regularly available to the insured. The appellate court distinguished this case from prior rulings that broadly interpreted the UM/UIM statute's purpose to protect against financially irresponsible motorists. Instead, it aligned with cases prohibiting claimants from recovering both liability and UM/UIM benefits under a single policy, especially when the at-fault driver was not financially irresponsible. The court concluded that allowing such recovery would improperly transform UM/UIM coverage into general liability insurance, contrary to the statutory intent to protect against the negligence of *others*. Consequently, the trial court's judgment awarding UIM benefits was reversed.

Uninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoverageAutomobile Liability PolicyInsurance Policy ExclusionsUM/UIM BenefitsStatutory ConstructionPublic Policy in InsuranceNegligence of OthersFinancial Responsibility LawTexas Appellate Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,312 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