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. M2004-01910-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2005

Rickey W. Pendleton v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Rickey W. Pendleton sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for injuries sustained during his arrest by metropolitan police officers, alleging assault and battery and vicarious liability through respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment for the government, ruling that a standalone respondeat superior claim was insufficient under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) for intentional torts, requiring a separate negligence claim against the governmental entity. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the GTLA mandates a direct showing of negligence by the governmental entity for intentional torts committed by its employees, and Pendleton failed to assert such a claim against the Metropolitan Government.

Governmental Tort Liability ActRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentIntentional TortsNegligenceAssault and BatteryPolice MisconductGovernmental ImmunityTennessee LawMunicipal Liability
References
6
Case No. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petty v. Tennken Railroad

This case concerns an employee of Tennken Railroad, an interstate common carrier, who filed for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a back injury during employment. The central legal question was whether the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) or the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act governed his claim. The trial court initially awarded workers' compensation. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the plaintiff's duties as a freight agent, which included managing train operations and scheduling, directly and substantially furthered interstate commerce. Citing the 1939 FELA amendment, which expanded coverage to employees whose duties in any part affected interstate commerce, the court found the plaintiff was covered by FELA, thereby dismissing his workers' compensation suit.

Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)Workers' CompensationInterstate CommerceRailroad OperationsEmployee DutiesStatutory Interpretation1939 FELA AmendmentScope of EmploymentAppellate ReversalHerniated Disc Injury
References
11
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

American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 v. Stone

Plaintiff Justin McCrary, a federal employee at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 (AFGE Local 1) sued the United States for alleged non-payment of his promised salary, citing violations of Fifth Amendment and contract rights under the Little Tucker Act. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court first dismissed AFGE Local 1 as a party due to lack of representational standing. Subsequently, the Court addressed McCrary's claims, finding his constitutional claim for back pay preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act and unexhausted administratively, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined McCrary had no protected property interest in a specific salary due to his conditional appointment and probationary status, and no actionable breach of contract claim as federal employees derive benefits from appointment, not contract. Consequently, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted, and the Plaintiffs' Complaint was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Motion to DismissFederal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Fifth AmendmentDue ProcessLittle Tucker ActCivil Service Reform ActBreach of Contract
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. Keller Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Lynn A. Murphy sued Keller Industries, Inc. for injuries sustained from a defective ladder, alleging negligence, strict product liability, and breach of warranty. Keller filed a third-party complaint against the United States Government, Murphy's employer, seeking indemnification or contribution. The Government moved to dismiss or strike the third-party complaint. The court, presided by Judge Motley, granted the Government's motion to strike the third-party complaint under Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision was based on two grounds: first, Keller's claim for contribution against the Government was meritless under New York law because the Government's liability was not contingent on Keller's liability to Murphy for the ladder defect; second, Keller's significant and unexcused delay in filing the third-party complaint after the bankruptcy stay was lifted provided an additional basis for striking the complaint. The court did not address the Government's Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ComplaintImpleaderRule 14(a)Subject-Matter JurisdictionContribution LawIndemnificationBankruptcy StayTimelinessProduct Liability
References
14
Case No. H-14-01147
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Co.

The case centers on Exxon Mobil Corporation's motion to remand a lawsuit from federal court back to state court, arising from disputes over insurance obligations following a refinery incident. The defendants include Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA, and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. The court considered arguments regarding admiralty jurisdiction, the "Savings to Suitors" clause, the applicability of Texas workers' compensation law, and the timeliness of the removal. Ultimately, the motion to remand was denied, affirming federal jurisdiction based on the maritime nature of the insurance policies, the defendants' consent to a jury trial, and the preclusive effect of res judicata on workers' compensation claims from a prior related case.

Admiralty JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance Contract DisputeRes JudicataSavings to Suitors ClauseBumbershoot PolicyMarine General LiabilityFederalismTimeliness of Removal
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 1978

Associated Builders & Contractors of Texas Gulf Coast, Inc. v. United States Department of Energy

This case concerns a request for a preliminary injunction filed by Gulf States, Inc., an electrical contractor, and the Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas Gulf Coast, Inc. against the Executive Branch of the federal government. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from proceeding with bids on the Bryan Mound Project until they could exercise their right to an administrative appeal of a revised wage determination issued by the Department of Labor. The court found that the initial wage determination was 'seriously and manifestly erroneous' and that the plaintiffs had been denied procedural due process because the government failed to adhere to its own regulations regarding administrative appeals. Citing the Accardi doctrine, the court emphasized that agencies must scrupulously observe their established rules. The court granted the preliminary injunction, affirming the plaintiffs' constitutional right to due process and ensuring their opportunity to perfect an administrative appeal before the Wage Appeals Board.

Due ProcessAdministrative LawWage DeterminationDavis-Bacon ActPreliminary InjunctionGovernment RegulationsLabor LawPublic ContractsStatutory InterpretationAgency Procedures
References
15
Case No. 2006 NY Slip Op 30219[U]
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Insurance v. North American Specialty Insurance

This case involves Federal Insurance Company suing Rivkin Radler LLP, Bruce A. Bendix, and Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.), Inc. for legal malpractice, bad faith, and indemnity. Federal, as an excess liability insurer and subrogee of Galaxy General Contracting Corp., sought to recoup $2,000,000 it paid to settle an underlying personal injury action. The core issue revolves around the defendants' failure to assert the antisubrogation rule, which Federal argued would have limited CUIC's (Galaxy's primary insurer) liability. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's denial of Rivkin's motion to dismiss Federal's claims, finding no privity for Federal's direct malpractice claim and no actual damages sustained by Galaxy for the subrogation claims. The court affirmed the bad faith claim against CUIC regarding the second cause of action but dismissed the first and third causes of action.

Legal MalpracticeBad Faith Insurance ClaimAntisubrogation RuleExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceIndemnification ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPrivity (Legal)Equitable Subrogation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 1995

Rigopoulos v. State

Dimitrios Rigopoulos, an independent contractor, sustained injuries while painting a bridge from a floating barge. He and his wife, Victoria Rigopoulos, brought a claim for personal injuries against the State of New York, alleging violations of the Labor Law. The Court of Claims initially awarded damages to the claimants and granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the judgment was reversed. The appellate court ruled that the accident occurred on navigable waters and constituted traditional maritime activity, thus Federal maritime law applied. Consequently, Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes strict liability, was preempted. The case was remitted to the Court of Claims for a new determination on liability under Labor Law § 200 (1) and § 241 (6), which do not impose strict liability and are not preempted by Federal maritime law.

Personal InjuryFederal Maritime LawLabor Law PreemptionStrict LiabilityNegligenceAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentDamages AwardRemandBridge Maintenance
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 8,332 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