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. 03-01-00649-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2002

Farmers Insurance Exchange Truck Insurance Exchange Fire Insurance Exchange Mid-Century Insurance Co. Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas Farmers New World Life Insurance Co. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company Farmers Group, Inc. v. Michael Leonard and Michael Sawyer on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Farmers Insurance Exchange and several affiliated companies (collectively 'Farmers') challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The class action was brought by Michael Leonard and Michael Sawyer on behalf of themselves and other agents, alleging that Farmers improperly calculated and awarded bonuses under four different bonus contracts. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that California's substantive law was correctly applied based on the 'most significant relationship' test. The court also found that the class met the requirements for certification, including adequate representation, predominance of common issues, and superiority of a class action over individual lawsuits, thereby rejecting Farmers' arguments for decertification.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealContract DisputeBonus PaymentsChoice of LawRule 42 Texas Rules of Civil ProcedureAdequacy of RepresentationPredominance of Common IssuesSuperiority of Class ActionCalifornia Law
References
27
Case No. 03-11-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2013

the Attorney General of Texas and the Commissioner of Insurance v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas, Texas Farmers Insurance Company, and Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning public-information requests made to the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) for rate-filing information submitted by a group of appellee insurers. The central issue was whether this information, declared "open to public inspection" by the Insurance Code, was subject to exceptions under the Public Information Act (PIA). The district court initially ruled that the PIA's exceptions applied. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the clear and unambiguous language of former section 2251.107 of the Insurance Code mandated public inspection without regard to the PIA's exceptions. The court emphasized plain-meaning statutory construction and dismissed arguments based on legislative history and constitutional challenges.

Statutory InterpretationPublic Information ActInsurance CodeOpen RecordsTrade SecretsRate FilingsTexas Department of InsuranceAppellate ReviewGovernment TransparencyTakings Clause
References
50
Case No. 02-06-00397-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Farmers Group Insurance, Inc., D/B/A Farmers Group Insurance, Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Fire Insurance Exchange v. Tammy Poteet

This is the second appeal in a case between Tammy Poteet (insured) and Farmers Insurance Exchange (insurer) regarding damages from smoke and soot in Poteet's home. The dispute also involves Farmers's alleged breach of the homeowner's policy's appraisal provision. The initial appeal largely favored Farmers, but remanded Poteet's claim for breach of the appraisal provision for further proceedings. On remand, a jury found Farmers breached the appraisal provision and awarded Poteet damages for personal property, loss of home value, and attorney's fees. This appellate court reversed the awards for property damage and loss of fair market value, affirming only specific litigation costs and remanding the general attorney's fees for re-determination, citing Poteet's failure to segregate covered from non-covered damages under the concurrent causation doctrine and the 'law of the case'.

Insurance LawBreach of ContractAppraisal ClauseProperty DamageSoot ContaminationConcurrent CausationAttorney's FeesAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentLaw of the Case
References
33
Case No. 10-0245
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2011

Patrick O. Ojo, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Farmers Group, Inc., Fire Underwriters Association, Fire Insurance Exchange, Farmers Underwriters Association, and Farmers Insurance Exchange

Justice Willett's concurring opinion in Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc. agrees with the majority's outcome that the Insurance Code, as written, does not support a cause of action for disparate impact discrimination related to credit scoring. However, he sharply criticizes the majority's methodology, particularly its reliance on extratextual aids like legislative history and failed bills, arguing such practices are "inappropriate" when a statute is unambiguous. Willett emphasizes the principle of textualism, asserting that "where text is clear, text is determinative," and warns against the manipulation of legislative history. He also disputes Chief Justice Jefferson's proposed distinction between "contextualizing" and "construing" legislative materials, viewing it as a tenuous attempt to justify the use of unreliable evidence. Ultimately, Justice Willett advocates for consistent, predictable statutory interpretation rooted solely in plain language to ensure clarity and stability in the law.

Statutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryTextualismDisparate ImpactInsurance CodeTexas Supreme CourtJudicial PrecedentConcurring OpinionCredit ScoringAmbiguity
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laine v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

This case addresses whether an umbrella insurance policy covers punitive damages assessed against an uninsured motorist, when the umbrella policy's coverage scope is defined by the underlying uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. Sandra Gervais Laine sued Farmers Insurance Exchange after her mother was killed by an uninsured drunk driver. Farmers paid the policy limit under the primary UM policy but denied payment under the umbrella policy for exemplary damages awarded against the drunk driver. The trial court granted Farmers' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ruling that UM coverage does not include exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed, citing Texas public policy against insurance recovery for punitive damages assessed against an uninsured motorist, stating that such damages are intended to punish the wrongdoer, not the insurer. The court also rejected Laine's estoppel and constitutional claims.

Uninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoverageUmbrella InsuranceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesPublic PolicyInsurance Policy InterpretationWrongful Death ClaimJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictTexas Insurance Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co.

Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, an excess uninsured motorist carrier, initiated an action seeking contribution from Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, the primary uninsured motorist carrier, for payments made to their shared insured, Larry A. Walker. The core dispute arose because Aetna and the Walkers, without Tennessee Farmers' consent, issued a full release to the tortfeasor, Nancy C. Childress, thereby extinguishing Tennessee Farmers’ subrogation rights. The trial court dismissed Aetna's complaint, concluding that the release prejudiced Tennessee Farmers' rights. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that an insured or their assignee forfeits recovery against the insurer if they destroy the insurer's subrogation rights, citing both statutory provisions (T.C.A. § 56-7-1204) and policy terms.

Uninsured Motorist CoverageSubrogation RightsRelease of ClaimsInsurance ContributionExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceBreach of ContractStatutory InterpretationAssignee RightsAppellate Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Security National Insurance Co. v. Farmer

Roger Farmer sustained two on-the-job low back injuries in January 1995 and April 1998. Security National Insurance Company was the carrier for the first injury, and Hartford Fire Insurance Company for the second. Disputes arose regarding the compensability of Farmer's L4-5 and L5-S1 disc herniations after April 1998, and which carrier was liable. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission appeals panel affirmed the hearing officer's decision against Security National, finding the January 1995 injury was a producing cause. Security National appealed to the trial court, which applied a substantial evidence rule, limited discovery, and affirmed the appeals panel's decision. On appeal, the higher court determined the trial court erred by applying the incorrect standard of review, ruling that a modified de novo standard should have been used. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with a modified de novo review.

Standard of ReviewModified De Novo ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewCompensability DisputeEligibility for BenefitsDisc Herniation InjurySpinal Injury ClaimInsurance Carrier DisputeAdministrative Law AppealStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. Soriano

Richard R. Soriano sued Texas Farmers Insurance Company for negligence, gross negligence, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, alleging the insurer mishandled claims arising from a car accident where Soriano was insured. Farmers settled a less severe claim (Lopez) for $5,000, leaving inadequate coverage for the more severe Medina claims, despite prior offers and knowledge of higher settlement demands. A jury found Farmers liable, awarding actual damages and $5,000,000 in exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the findings of negligence and bad faith but found the exemplary damages excessive. The court reduced the exemplary damages to $1,000,000 and corrected a double award of prejudgment interest. The judgment was conditionally affirmed upon the appellees filing a remittitur of $4,000,000 within 30 days; otherwise, the judgment would be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Insurance LawBad FaithNegligenceGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesActual DamagesSettlementPolicy LimitsAppellate ReviewRemittitur
References
51
Case No. 03-03-00374-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2009

Jan Lubin, Gilberto Villanueva, Michael Paladino, Gerald Hooks and Lesly K. Hooks v. Farmers Group, Inc. Farmers Underwriters Association Fire Underwriters Association Farmers Insurance Exchange Fire Insurance Exchange Texas Farmers Insurance Company Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas Mid-Century Insurance Company

This is an interlocutory appeal before the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, concerning the certification of a class action initiated by the Attorney General against Farmers Group, Inc. and its affiliated insurance entities. The underlying lawsuit alleges Farmers engaged in unlawful and discriminatory homeowners and automobile insurance practices, including overcharging premiums, improper use of credit histories, and failure to disclose critical information. Following a remand from the supreme court which clarified that the Attorney General does not require individual class representatives, this court affirms the district court's class certification order. The decision concludes that the class action met all statutory prerequisites for certification and that the Attorney General's claims fell within the scope of the relevant insurance code provisions.

Class ActionInsurance LawConsumer ProtectionPremium OverchargesDiscriminatory PracticesCredit ScoringHomeowners InsuranceAutomobile InsuranceSettlement ClassInterlocutory Appeal
References
36
Case No. W2009-00931-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2010

Joseph Kevin Adams v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company

The plaintiff, Joseph Kevin Adams, sought recovery under his homeowner's insurance policy after his house was destroyed by fire. The defendant, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, denied the claim, asserting that Adams lacked an insurable interest in the property after deeding it to his sons and failed to notify them of the change. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Adams, awarding him damages and discretionary costs, but denied prejudgment interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding of an insurable interest and the award of discretionary costs. However, the appellate court vacated the denial of prejudgment interest, remanding the case for its proper calculation and award, concluding that the plaintiff should be fully compensated for the loss of use of his funds.

Insurance PolicyHomeowner's InsuranceInsurable InterestBreach of ContractProperty OwnershipWarranty of OwnershipDuty to DiscloseConcealment or FraudPrejudgment InterestDiscretionary Costs
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 15,616 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