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

Fagan Holdings, Inc. v. Thinkware, Inc.

Plaintiff Fagan Holdings, Inc. sued Defendant Thinkware, Inc. for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation regarding a software licensing agreement. Fagan alleged that Thinkware's Darwin software failed to perform as promised and that customer support was inadequate. The court applied Ohio law to the contract claim and Texas law to the tort claims. The court granted Thinkware's motion for summary judgment on the claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the product support services section of the agreement. However, summary judgment was denied for the breach of express warranty claim and the indemnification claim, as genuine issues of material fact remained.

Breach of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligent MisrepresentationSummary JudgmentSoftware Licensing AgreementChoice of LawExpress WarrantyIndemnificationOhio LawTexas Law
References
37
Case No. M2018-00132-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2018

Darrin M. Dixon v. Alan Wayne Chrisco

Purchasers Darrin and Teresa Dixon sued sellers Alan and Teddi Chrisco alleging intentional misrepresentation, a violation of the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure Act (TRPDA), and fraudulent concealment concerning a railroad right-of-way and a planned second track on the property. The trial court dismissed misrepresentation and TRPDA claims but granted judgment to the Dixons for fraudulent concealment of the second track, awarding $15,000. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the fraudulent concealment claim related to the right-of-way's extent, citing the purchasers' failure to exercise ordinary diligence. However, the court reversed the $15,000 damages award for the fraudulent concealment of the railroad expansion, finding insufficient proof of the property's actual diminished value at the time of the transaction.

Real PropertyFraudulent ConcealmentMisrepresentationTennessee Residential Property Disclosure ActRight-of-WayRailroad ExpansionCaveat EmptorProperty ValueDamagesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cortez v. Alutech, Inc.

This case involves an appeal stemming from an employment contract dispute between Appellants ACPC, Inc. and Alfredo Riviere, and Appellees Oswaldo Antonio Cortez and his family. Cortez alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel after his employment with ACPC was terminated prematurely, despite promises of a three-year term and assistance with permanent residency. A jury found mixed verdicts, ultimately awarding the Appellees $50,000 in damages against ACPC and Riviere for fraudulent misrepresentation in their corporate capacities. On appeal, the Appellants challenged the denial of their summary judgment motion and directed verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Appellants' failure to file a timely post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict precluded a review of the directed verdict issue.

Employment Contract BreachFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligent MisrepresentationPromissory EstoppelSummary Judgment DenialDirected Verdict MotionPost-Trial ProcedureAppellate Review WaiverTennessee Appellate RulesJury Verdict Challenge
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp.

The plaintiffs, Candace Curtis and Heather Curtis, appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The first order denied their motion to amend the complaint to add fraud-based causes of action, and the second denied their motion for leave to reargue. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order denying reargument, as such orders are not appealable. However, the court modified the August 3, 2001, order by granting infant plaintiff Candace Curtis leave to assert causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. This decision was based on the principle that fraud can exist even when misrepresentations are made to a third party (the mother) but result in injury to the plaintiff (the infant). The court affirmed the denial of the motion to amend for Heather Curtis on statute of limitations grounds related to her negligence claims.

Personal InjuryFraudulent MisrepresentationConstructive FraudFraudulent ConcealmentNegligent MisrepresentationPrenatal InjuriesFetusEmployer LiabilityStatute of LimitationsAmendment of Complaint
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerber v. Amalgamated Transit Union Division 580

The plaintiff was fired by CNY Centro, Inc. and filed a grievance which the defendant union failed to arbitrate within the stipulated time. The plaintiff sued the union alleging negligence, breach of collective bargaining agreement, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The union moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption and a six-month statute of limitations. The court held that it had jurisdiction over unfair representation claims in state courts. It applied the six-month federal statute of limitations to the negligence and breach of contract claims, finding them time-barred. However, the court applied New York's six-year statute of limitations for fraudulent misrepresentation, finding that claim timely.

Unfair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsFederal PreemptionLabor DisputesGrievance ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementFraudulent MisrepresentationState Court JurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheehan v. United States Postal Service

The plaintiff, a former letter carrier, sued the Union (Branch 81 and Branch 358) and Michael Hoag (Branch 81 president) for breach of duty of fair representation, fraudulent misrepresentation, wrongful discharge, and conspiracy after her termination from USPS. She alleged that Hoag falsely claimed to have filed an appeal for her termination grievance. The Court found the federal breach of duty of fair representation claim to be time-barred. It further ruled that the state law claims for wrongful discharge and conspiracy were preempted by federal labor law. The fraudulent misrepresentation claim was also deemed preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationFraudulent MisrepresentationWrongful DischargeConspiracy (Labor Law)Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentFederal PreemptionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
46
Case No. M2003-02030-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Consumer Financial Services (Management) Inc., G. Ronald Hall, and Jacquelene O'Rourke Hall v. Consumer Financial Services Management, L.L.C. and Gabriel, L.L.C.

This contract action involved the sale of a loan company. The purchasers encountered significant financial and operational problems post-closing and sought to rescind the transaction, while the sellers later sued for breach of contract. The purchasers filed a counter-complaint, alleging fraudulent inducement through multiple misrepresentations. The trial court sided with the purchasers, finding the sellers had committed fraud, granting rescission of the sale agreement, and awarding compensatory damages, while dismissing the sellers' complaint. The sellers appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was ample evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions by the sellers, and that the remedies of contract unenforceability, rescission, and damages were appropriate.

Contract DisputeFraudulent InducementRescission of ContractBreach of ContractBusiness AcquisitionMisrepresentationDue DiligenceFinancial DisclosureAppellate ReviewDamages Calculation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Edwards

Justice Drowota dissents from the majority's decision affirming the dismissal of John Edwards' worker's compensation claim. Edwards sustained a serious back injury while employed by Service Construction Company. His claim was dismissed by the trial court due to alleged fraudulent misrepresentation on his job application regarding a prior back injury. Drowota argues that Edwards made a good faith disclosure of his past injury to foremen shortly after hiring, negating the employer's reliance and any fraudulent intent. Furthermore, medical testimony established no causal connection between the prior injury and the current one. Drowota asserts that an employer retaining an employee after knowledge of a misrepresentation should forfeit it as a defense.

Workers' CompensationEmployment MisrepresentationBack InjuryCausal ConnectionEmployer RelianceNotice to EmployerDissenting OpinionAffirmative DefenseTrial Court ReviewPermanent Medical Impairment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2015

Rana v. Islam

Mashud Parves Rana sued his former employers, Monirul Islam and Fahima Tahsina Prova, alleging violations of federal and state labor laws, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York State Labor Law, alongside various New York state common law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of insufficient pleading for fraudulent misrepresentation, consular immunity, and insufficient service of process. The Court denied the defendants' motion in its entirety, finding the fraudulent misrepresentation claim sufficiently pled and the defendants not immune from suit. Although there was an issue of fact regarding service, the Court found that proper service could still be obtained and ordered service on the defendants' attorneys.

Fraudulent MisrepresentationConsular ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionService of ProcessTrafficking Victims ProtectionFair Labor StandardsNew York State Labor LawDomestic Worker ExploitationDiplomatic PrivilegesMotion to Dismiss
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Orlando v. Novurania of America, Inc.

John Orlando sued Novurania of America, Inc. for breach of express warranty, implied warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent design/manufacturing concerning a boat purchased in 1996 that later developed cracks. Defendant moved to dismiss all claims. The District Court dismissed the implied warranty claims (Counts II and III) as time-barred under New York's UCC § 2-725(2), as they accrued at the time of purchase in 1996. The negligent design claim (Count V) was dismissed for merely restating contractual duties. The fraudulent misrepresentation claim (Count IV) was barred by New York's economic loss rule, as only economic damages were alleged. Demands for punitive damages and attorney's fees were also stricken. Only the breach of express warranty claim (Count I) survives.

Motion to DismissStatute of LimitationsBreach of WarrantyFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligent DesignEconomic Loss RulePunitive DamagesAttorney's FeesUniform Commercial CodeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 1,098 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