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

Fulton Bellows, LLC v. Federal Insurance

This case involves Fulton Bellows, LLC (FBLLC) suing Federal Insurance Company for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim. FBLLC sought defense coverage under its Employment Practices Liability (EPL) policy for an age discrimination lawsuit (Gaskey v. Fulton Bellows, LLC) filed against it. Federal Insurance denied coverage, citing a prior acts exclusion and untimely notice of the claim. The court denied Federal Insurance's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the discriminatory acts occurred after the policy effective date and whether the late notice prejudiced the insurer, given it was within the policy period. However, the court granted summary judgment for Federal Insurance on the bad faith failure to pay claim and the TCPA claim, concluding that Federal Insurance asserted good faith defenses and its denial was not deceptive or unfair.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment Practices Liability (EPL)Prior Acts ExclusionNotice ProvisionClaims-Made PolicyOccurrence PolicyPrejudice RuleBad Faith ClaimTennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)Summary Judgment
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. 01-22-00712-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2024

Ernest Polk v. Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner

Ernest Polk, a Financial Examiner I, was terminated by the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (OCCC) for alleged misuse of his state credit card. Polk sued OCCC for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, claiming his promotion was delayed and termination was retaliatory after he reported racial discrimination. The trial court granted OCCC's Plea to the Jurisdiction, dismissing his claims. The appellate court affirmed, finding Polk failed to establish a causal link or pretext for his retaliation claim, did not exhaust administrative remedies for his race discrimination termination claim, and the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough for a hostile work environment claim.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionCredit Card MisuseFailure to PromotePrima Facie Case
References
68
Case No. 00-CV-905
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Trade Commission v. First Capital Consumer Membership Services, Inc.

Non-party Electronic Payment Exchange (EPX) sought to intervene as a plaintiff in a case initiated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against First Capital defendants. EPX claimed a significant financial interest due to an outstanding debt from defendant Worldwide Telecom, Inc., and a specific interest in funds held in the "Dakota Financial Group" account seized by the FTC and placed under receivership. EPX moved to intervene as of right and by permission, arguing its interests were not adequately protected by the FTC or the Receiver. The court denied EPX's motion, finding that EPX did not demonstrate that its interests would be impaired or inadequately protected, especially given the FTC's role as parens patriae and the Receiver's obligation to all claimants. The court also noted that EPX had alternative avenues for relief and that allowing intervention would introduce collateral issues and unduly delay the main action.

InterventionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2)Asset FreezeReceivershipPromissory NoteCreditor ClaimsAdequacy of RepresentationParens PatriaeCollateral Issues
References
17
Case No. 03-18-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Low Income Consumers, Mary Wilson and Hipolita Lutz v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a direct appeal challenging amendments to Rules 25.478 and 25.480 adopted by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas. The appellants, "Low Income Consumers," Mary Wilson, and Hipolita Lutz, along with the intervenor City of Houston, argued that the PUC failed to comply with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and misconstrued relevant statutes. They specifically contested the repeal of the split-deposit provision in former Rule 25.478(e)(3) and amendments to Rule 25.480 concerning late fees and deferred payment plans, asserting these were essential customer protections rather than benefits tied to the expired System Benefit Fund (SBF). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and adhered to the APA's notice and reasoned justification requirements. The court found that the contested provisions were not mandated protections under other sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).

Public Utility CommissionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)System Benefit Fund (SBF)RulemakingCustomer ProtectionsLow-income customersSplit-deposit provisionDeferred payment plansLate-fee waiverStatutory interpretation
References
22
Case No. 04-19-00548-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2021

San Antonio Federal Credit Union v. Mario R. Cantu

This case involves an appeal by San Antonio Federal Credit Union (SACU) against a final judgment in favor of Mario R. Cantu, stemming from a breach of contract dispute. The core of the dispute revolved around two general services agreements (GSAs) concerning Cantu's janitorial services for SACU. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Cantu, ruling that the November GSA was the only valid and enforceable contract, and that its termination clauses required cause and specific notice periods. SACU appealed, challenging Galland's authority to execute the November GSA and the enforceability of the December GSA. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Galland had apparent authority and that the December GSA was unenforceable due to indefiniteness and lack of proper execution.

Contract LawBreach of ContractApparent AuthorityContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentJury InstructionsMaterial BreachService AgreementTexas Appellate CourtTermination Clause
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garner v. East Texas National Bank of Palestine

Roy and Charla Garner filed suit against Phillip O. Watson and East Texas National Bank, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection acts for failure to make proper disclosures in a consumer credit transaction. The Garners had contracted with Watson to build a home, executing a lien contract and note. Watson then transferred his interest in the contract to East Texas National Bank to secure an interim construction loan. The Garners contended the Bank was liable as a 'subsequent assignee' for Watson's original non-disclosures and for its own alleged failures during a note renewal. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment, prompting an appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient admissible evidence to support the implied finding that the Bank held only a security interest in the Garners' note and was therefore not a 'subsequent assignee' liable under the consumer credit laws.

Consumer Credit LawTruth in Lending ActSecurity InterestsAssignment (Law)Parol Evidence RuleContract InterpretationAppellate ProcedureImplied Findings of FactFinancial Disclosure RequirementsReal Estate Finance
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07309 [211 AD3d 621]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Matter of Runway Towing Corp., Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer & Worker Protection

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order that had vacated a determination by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCPW). Runway Towing Corp. Inc. had challenged DCPW's denial of its tow truck license renewal due to repeated overcharges for towing and storage fees under various programs. The Appellate Division found DCPW's determination rational and its penalty of license renewal denial proportionate to Runway's numerous violations over a two-year period. The court also dismissed Runway's claims that 6 RCNY 6-36 limited penalties to monetary fines and its due process arguments regarding license renewal.

Tow Truck LicenseExcessive Towing FeesLicense Renewal DenialAdministrative Code ViolationsProportionality of PenaltyDue Process RightsArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ReviewConsumer ProtectionWorker Protection
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02942 [205 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2022

Matter of Casino Towing Serv., Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer & Worker Protection

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment that denied a petition by Casino Towing Service, Inc. to annul a determination by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP). DCWP had suspended Casino Towing's tow truck license for three months due to violations of insurance coverage rules, specifically for modifying its policy to reduce coverage below mandated amounts and failing to report the change within 10 days. The Appellate Division found DCWP's determination to be rationally supported by the record and not arbitrary and capricious. The court further held that Casino Towing did not have a constitutional due process right to a hearing, as there is no property interest in the renewal of an expired license and adequate notice and opportunity for written submissions were provided. The penalty was also deemed not to shock the conscience.

Tow Truck License SuspensionInsurance Coverage ViolationsAdministrative Code ViolationsDue Process RightsLicense RenewalAppellate ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousPenalty Shock the ConscienceCPLR Article 78DCWP Determination
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Highland Village Parents Group v. United States Federal Highway Administration

The plaintiff, Highland Village Parents Group, challenged a federally-funded road construction project in Denton County, Texas, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lawsuit named federal and state transportation agencies and their administrators as defendants. The court dismissed claims against the state defendants, Texas Transportation Commission and Ric Williamson, ruling that the APA applies only to federal agencies. Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff's claims against the federal defendants were time-barred by a 180-day statute of limitations, which superseded the general six-year APA limitation. The court also determined that a subsequent reevaluation of the project did not reopen the claims or provide a new basis for a lawsuit, as the modifications were considered minor. Consequently, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the entire case was dismissed with prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Section 4(f) Department of Transportation ActMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Highway Administration (FHWA)Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 11,304 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