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

EPGT Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Harris County Flood Control District

EPGT Texas Pipeline, L.P. (PG&E) appealed a summary judgment granted to the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) regarding damages to PG&E's gas pipeline during a drainage excavation project. The court affirmed summary judgment on PG&E's negligence and strict liability claims, concluding that HCFCD's immunity was not waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act because the damage was caused by an independent contractor. Summary judgment on the breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims was also affirmed, as PG&E was not deemed an intended third-party beneficiary. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the inverse condemnation claim, dismissing it without prejudice due to the trial court's lack of exclusive jurisdiction, which lies with Harris County Courts at Law.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIndependent ContractorNegligenceStrict LiabilityBreach of ContractThird-Party BeneficiaryInverse CondemnationJurisdictionSummary Judgment
References
50
Case No. 01-02-01056-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

PG&E Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Harris County Flood Control District & Ramex Construction Co., Inc.

EPGT Texas Pipeline, L.P. (PG&E) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). PG&E sought damages for pipeline displacement caused by HCFCD's drainage excavation project. The court determined that the Texas Tort Claims Act did not waive HCFCD's sovereign immunity for tort claims, as the damage was caused by an independent contractor. While the Texas Water Code waived immunity for breach of contract, PG&E was not an intended third-party beneficiary. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment for negligence, strict liability, breach of contract, and declaratory judgment claims. However, it reversed and dismissed without prejudice the inverse condemnation claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIndependent ContractorBreach of ContractThird-Party BeneficiaryInverse CondemnationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentPipeline DamageDrainage Project
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2000

Taub v. Harris County Flood Control District

This case involves an appeal by Henry J.N. Taub from an order granting a plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing his Petition for Bill of Review. Taub filed a bill of review seeking to rescind or modify a 1975 judgment partitioning property in Harris County, alleging breach of contract and fraud by Harris County Flood Control District. The trial court granted the County and District's plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. The appellate court examined whether Texas Local Government Code section 89.004 constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, ultimately concluding it does not, but rather sets forth a condition precedent to filing suit. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Sovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionBill of ReviewGovernmental ImmunityTexas Local Government CodeWaiver of ImmunityCondition PrecedentContract DisputeEasementsCondemnation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. 13-08-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2010

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa and Industrial Risk Insurers v. John Zink Company Fisher Controls Company, Inc. Fisher Controls International, Inc. Fisher Controls Installation and Service Company And Valtek, Inc.

This litigation, stemming from refinery explosions and fires in the 1980s, involved an appeal by National Union Fire Insurance Company and Industrial Risk Insurers (the Insurers) against various contractors (the Contractors). The Insurers, as subrogees of Valero Energy Corporation, sought damages for product liability, negligence, breach of contract, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations. The core legal dispute centered on whether the Contractors qualified as 'subcontractors' under a master contract between Valero and M.W. Kellogg Construction Company, which contained extensive waiver and release provisions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's final summary judgment, concluding that the Contractors were indeed subcontractors, the express negligence doctrine did not apply to the post-act release, and Valero had validly waived its DTPA claims, thereby binding its subrogees.

Contractual WaiversSubrogation RightsSummary Judgment AppealExpress Negligence RuleDeceptive Trade Practices ActParol Evidence Rule ApplicationJudicial AdmissionsConstruction ContractsInsurance LitigationThird-Party Beneficiary
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Fulton Sylphon Division, Robertshaw Controls Co.

Willie J. Johnson, a black male, filed a Title VII lawsuit against his employer, Fulton Sylphon Division of Robertshaw Controls Company, alleging racial discrimination regarding a denied transfer to the Numerical Control Department and subsequent retaliatory discharge. Johnson claimed he was denied promotion due to his race and fired in retaliation for his protected activities. The defendant argued that Johnson's excessive absenteeism, poor work performance, and lack of qualifications were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions. The court found that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, concluding he was not qualified for the transfer due to his consistent poor work record. Furthermore, his discharge was found to be a result of his ongoing absenteeism and uncooperative attitude, not retaliation. The court ruled in favor of the defendant.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliatory DischargeAbsenteeismPoor Work PerformancePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas TestPretextStatistical Evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

Robert Sullivent filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against his employer, Johnson Controls, Inc., under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Johnson, which Sullivent subsequently appealed. Concurrently, Sullivent's union initiated grievance arbitration, which also concluded in favor of Johnson. Johnson then sought to dismiss Sullivent's appeal, arguing the arbitration decision preempted the state action. The court of appeals agreed and dismissed the appeal. However, a higher court reversed this decision, stating that state causes of action regarding labor disputes are permissible if they do not require interpretation of collective bargaining agreements, thereby ruling that Sullivent's action was not preempted and remanding the case for further consideration.

Wrongful dischargeWorkers' Compensation ActArbitration preemptionCollective bargaining agreementState law preemptionFederal preemptionSummary judgmentAppellate reviewWrit of errorRemand
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Chirino v. Sanitary Controls, Inc.

This case concerns appeals from Workers’ Compensation Board decisions that upheld the State Insurance Fund's cancellation of a workers’ compensation policy for Sanitary Controls, Inc. due to nonpayment. The Fund sent a cancellation notice on November 23, 1976, effective December 11, 1976. Sanitary received it eight days before the effective date. Concurrently, Sanitary filed for bankruptcy, and a court order stayed proceedings against it but did not explicitly stop the policy cancellation. The appeals court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that service of cancellation is effective upon mailing, not receipt, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 54, subd 5, and that the bankruptcy filing did not negate Sanitary’s insurance obligations.

Policy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumBankruptcy LawService of NoticeInsurance LiabilityAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationEmployer ObligationsInsurer ObligationsBoard Decisions
References
4
Case No. 03-04-00632-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2006

State of Texas v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc.

The State of Texas, representing TxDOT, sued Precision Solar Controls, Inc., for breach of contract and warranty regarding allegedly defective traffic signals. Precision Solar filed a counterclaim for business disparagement, asserting the State waived sovereign immunity by initiating the suit. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, holding that by filing suit, the State waives its sovereign immunity against germane counterclaims, even if they are intentional torts, as the core facts concerning the signals' quality and warranty performance are common to both claims.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityCounterclaimsBusiness DisparagementBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
31
Case No. 14-02-01252-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Anchor Fumigation & Pest Control, Inc. v. Conrad Cortes

Conrad Cortes (appellee) sued his former employer, Anchor Fumigation and Pest Control, Inc. (appellant), alleging disability discrimination and workers’ compensation retaliation. A default judgment was entered against Anchor due to its failure to file an answer. Anchor appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial, arguing its failure to answer was due to mistake. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Anchor did not provide competent proof that its agent's failure to file an answer was accidental and not a result of conscious indifference, thus failing to meet the Craddock requirements for a new trial.

Default judgmentMotion for new trialAppellate reviewAbuse of discretionConscious indifferenceMistakeMeritorious defenseWorkers' compensation retaliationDisability discriminationTexas civil procedure
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 2,089 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