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. 01-10-00711-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2011

Lexington Insurance Company v. National Oil Well Varco, Inc. and Fiber Glass Systems, L. P.

Lexington Insurance Company (Lexington) brought a suit seeking a declaration of rights and duties under an insurance policy regarding an underlying lawsuit where Albemarle Corporation sued National Oilwell NOV, Inc. (National) for defective fiberglass downhole tubing. Lexington had initially acknowledged a duty to defend National after its self-insured retention (SIR) was exhausted. However, after the underlying case settled, Lexington contested its duty to defend and indemnify, and also claimed National failed to provide timely notice of SIR exhaustion. The trial court granted summary judgment in National's favor, finding Lexington had a duty to defend and was liable for defense costs. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Albemarle's claims potentially encompassed covered property damage beyond the defective product itself and that Lexington's unilateral request for SIR exhaustion notice did not create an additional duty for National.

Insurance DisputeDuty to DefendProducts LiabilitySelf-Insured RetentionCommercial General Liability PolicyPolicy ExclusionsProperty DamageSummary Judgment ReviewContract InterpretationTexas Insurance Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wiltsie v. Owens Corning Fiberglass

Claimant suffered a compensable low back injury in 1995, continuing work with restrictions and ADA accommodations. In 2003, the employer's decision to change his shift caused claimant stress, leading his primary physician to diagnose chest pain syndrome, agoraphobia, and depression, and advise him to stop working. Initially awarded benefits for a period, the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently denied further benefits, concluding that claimant's departure from work was for reasons unrelated to his back disability. Claimant appealed, contending his back injury prevented him from the new shift, but the Board's determination, supported by other evidence, found he left due to stress from the shift dispute rather than his back condition. The Board's decision, which included an assessment of claimant's testimony and medical evidence, was affirmed, as it was supported by credible evidence.

Low Back InjuryAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Workplace AccommodationShift Schedule ChangeStress-Related IllnessChest Pain SyndromeAgoraphobiaDepression DiagnosisCredibility of Medical OpinionPermanent Partial Disability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Adams v. Owens Corning Fiberglass

The Special Disability Fund appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from November 23, 1999, which had discharged the Fund from liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). Initially, a WCB panel ruled that the employer’s carrier was entitled to reimbursement for a claimant's preexisting coronary artery disease. Although the Fund's appeal to this Court was dismissed for failure to prosecute, the full Board later rescinded the panel's decision, finding the carrier's reimbursement claim failed to specify coronary artery disease as a preexisting disability. This Court affirmed the full Board's decision, asserting the Board's plenary authority under Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 to modify its decisions, even after an appeal dismissal. The Court emphasized strict adherence to claim form requirements, noting the carrier's form lacked specific mention of the coronary artery disease, thereby denying the reimbursement claim.

Special Disability FundWorkers' Compensation BoardReimbursementPreexisting DisabilityCoronary Artery DiseaseFailure to ProsecuteBoard AuthorityClaim Form ComplianceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.

Stephen T. Adams, a self-employed electrician, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while performing electrical work on a building owned by the defendant. He became electrocuted and, to free himself, directed a co-worker to kick the ladder out, resulting in a fall to a concrete floor. Adams and his spouse initiated legal action, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion regarding Labor Law § 240(1). However, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision on Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and common-law negligence, granting summary judgment to the defendant, concluding the ladder did not fail and the defendant lacked supervision. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Labor Law § 241(6), indicating unresolved factual questions regarding safety precautions.

Ladder fallElectrocution injuryLabor Law violationsSummary judgment appealConstruction accidentWorker safetyPremises liabilityGeneral contractor responsibilityAppellate DivisionNew York labor law
References
3
Case No. 88 Civ. 3317
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation

Arlene Maiorana, widow of John Maiorana, sued several asbestos manufacturers, alleging her husband's colon cancer was caused by asbestos exposure during his career. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Maiorana couldn't prove asbestos caused the colon cancer. The court discussed the standard for summary judgment and the role of epidemiological data, stating that a plaintiff needs to show a relative risk greater than 2.0 for causation without direct evidence. Maiorana failed to present sufficient admissible epidemiological evidence or expert testimony to meet this standard. Additionally, her medical experts' opinions were found inadmissible due to insufficient expertise or unsupported underlying assumptions regarding Mr. Maiorana's medical history. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Asbestos LitigationColon CancerSummary JudgmentCausationEpidemiological EvidenceRelative RiskMedical Expert TestimonyProduct LiabilityFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)Federal Rule of Evidence 702
References
11
Case No. 2016-05-0775
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2017

Brown, Rickie A. v. Goodman Global

Rickie Brown filed for an Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for a skin condition developed from fiberglass exposure at Goodman Global in June 2015. Although Goodman initially accepted the claim and provided benefits, they were later terminated. The court found Mr. Brown failed to present sufficient medical evidence establishing a causal connection for future treatment or the duration of his temporary disability. Specifically, no medical opinion linked his current medical needs to the work injury, nor was evidence provided that he was completely off work. Therefore, the Court denied his request, concluding he was unlikely to prevail on the merits for either medical or temporary disability benefits at this time.

Workers' CompensationSkin ConditionFiberglass ExposureTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingMaximum Medical ImprovementCausationMedical CertaintyTennessee Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ray v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This workmen's compensation case concerns an appellant seeking benefits for asbestosis, an occupational disease, allegedly contracted during employment with Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation in New Madrid, Missouri. The appellant, a Tennessee resident, obtained information about the job through a Memphis union, but the contract of employment and all work were performed in Missouri. The trial court dismissed the action, concluding that Tennessee lacked sufficient contacts to apply its workmen's compensation law. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that the appellant's residency and union notification in Tennessee were insufficient grounds to apply Tennessee law when the employment contract, work, and injury all occurred in Missouri. The Court also discussed the general principle that courts of one state typically do not enforce the commission-administered compensation laws of another jurisdiction.

Occupational DiseaseAsbestosisWorkmen's CompensationJurisdictionConflict of LawsExtraterritorial ApplicationContract of EmploymentPlace of InjurySummary JudgmentInsurance Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lexington Insurance Co. v. National Oilwell Nov, Inc.

Albemarle Corporation sued National Oilwell NOV, Inc. (National) over defective fiberglass tubing, which led to a settlement. Subsequently, National's insurer, Lexington, initiated a lawsuit in a Texas state district court to obtain a declaration of the parties' rights and duties under the insurance policy concerning the Albemarle suit. Lexington contended that the damages were excluded by policy terms and that National failed to provide timely notice after exhausting its self-insured retention. The trial court, however, ruled in favor of National, affirming Lexington's duty to defend and awarding National defense costs and attorney's fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Albemarle's allegations potentially encompassed covered property damage beyond the defective product itself and dismissing Lexington's claims regarding policy exclusions and notice.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendProducts LiabilitySelf-Insured Retention (SIR)Summary JudgmentPolicy ExclusionsProperty DamageBreach of ContractTexas Insurance CodeEight Corners Rule
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lambert v. Travelers Insurance Co.

Cynthia J. Lambert, an employee of Aqua Glass, Inc., developed allergic contact dermatitis after exposure to fiberglass and other chemicals at her workplace in Adamsville, Tennessee. Her condition was diagnosed as a permanent occupational disease, leading to a 45% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The Chancellor awarded benefits, a decision subsequently appealed by the employer and its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company. The Supreme Court affirmed the Chancellor's decree, concluding that the appeal was frivolous due to the defendant's lack of supporting evidence and prior partial payment of benefits. Consequently, the Court awarded damages to Ms. Lambert, including costs and attorney's fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine these amounts. This case highlights employer liability under the Worker’s Compensation Act for disabilities resulting from the activation or aggravation of a pre-existing condition brought about by employment.

Allergic Contact DermatitisOccupational DiseasePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation AppealFrivolous AppealChemical ExposureFiberglass AllergyMedical Expert TestimonyEmployer LiabilityPre-existing Condition Aggravation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mitchell v. Atlas Copco North America, Inc.

An electrician, referred to as Plaintiff, initiated a Labor Law and negligence action against site owner Atlas Copco North America, Inc., and general contractor Jersen Industries, Inc., following a construction accident in October 1996. The Plaintiff sustained injuries when a fiberglass A-frame stepladder, which he described as old and worn, collapsed while he was working, causing him to fall. He alleged that construction debris on the floor contributed to the accident and that he had previously informed supervisors about it. The Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) but denied Atlas's cross-motion for indemnification against Jersen. Atlas appealed the award of partial summary judgment to the Plaintiff, but the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, rejecting Atlas's arguments regarding ownership, premature discovery, and the merits of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Construction Site AccidentElevated WorkLadder CollapseScaffolding LawStatutory LiabilityOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewIndemnification Claim
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 11 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