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

North Star Reinsurance Corp. v. Continental Insurance

The court addresses the novel legal issue of "preindemnification" and the application of the "antisubrogation rule" in cases involving disputes among insurance carriers over work site injuries. It rejects the "preindemnification" doctrine, which contractors asserted would prioritize owners' insurance coverage over their own, citing lack of support from contractual language, premium disparities, or common-law indemnification principles. However, the court affirms and extends the narrower antisubrogation rule, preventing an insurer from seeking recovery from its own insured for the same risk, even when multiple policies are involved. This rule is applied to bar subrogation claims in the cases of Prince and Valentin, but not in North Star due to specific policy exclusions.

Insurance LawIndemnificationSubrogationPreindemnification DoctrineAntisubrogation RuleWorkers' CompensationGeneral Contractors' Liability (GCL) InsuranceOwners' Contractors' Protective (OCP) InsuranceVicarious LiabilityContractual Obligation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Slaughter

R.B. Slaughter, an employee of Basin Testers, Inc., tragically died after a fall in a company shower. His widow subsequently filed a claim for death benefits under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, which the trial court granted. The insurance company appealed this decision, raising concerns about the admissibility of a res gestae statement and challenging the sufficiency of evidence to prove Slaughter was within the course and scope of his employment. However, the appellate court affirmed the original judgment, concluding that ample independent evidence existed, even without the disputed statement, to establish Slaughter's eligibility for benefits under the personal convenience doctrine.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPersonal Convenience DoctrineCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentRes GestaeHearsayLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gore v. Amoco Production Co.

This case concerns a common law personal injury action brought by an employee against her employer. The plaintiff was injured after falling over a roll of carpeting at work and subsequently received a settlement from the employer's compensation carrier under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Despite this, she asserted a common law action, arguing the employer was liable in a dual capacity as both employer and occupier of the premises. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the 'dual capacity' doctrine based on strong precedent from Cohn v. Spinks Industries, Inc., which emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Law represents the exclusive remedy in Texas.

Dual Capacity DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ActExclusivity ProvisionCommon Law ActionSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewLegal Precedent
References
3
Case No. 06 Civ. 12878(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

International Securities Exchange, LLC v. S & P Dow Jones Indices, LLC

International Securities Exchange, LLC and International Exchange Holdings, Inc. (ISE) sued S & P Dow Jones, LLC (Dow Jones) for a declaration of right to list options on S&P 500 and DJIA indices without a license, claiming federal copyright preemption. The lawsuit was stayed pending resolution of an identical case in Illinois state courts. The Illinois courts ruled in favor of Dow Jones, affirming its intellectual property rights and concluding that ISE's actions constituted misappropriation, a decision affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court and upheld by the US Supreme Court's denial of certiorari. Upon returning to the current court, ISE sought to amend its complaint, while Dow Jones moved to dismiss based on res judicata. The court granted Dow Jones' motion, ruling that the Illinois judgment was binding under the Full Faith and Credit Act and Illinois preclusion rules, thus barring ISE from relitigating the preemption issue. ISE's motion to amend its complaint was denied as futile.

Copyright PreemptionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelFull Faith and Credit ActIntellectual Property RightsStock Market IndicesOptions TradingUnfair CompetitionTortious InterferenceIllinois State Law
References
42
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blum v. General Electric Co.

This is a consolidated action brought by 211 plaintiffs, both American and German, against Lucent Technologies, Inc., General Electric Company, Raytheon Company, and Honeywell International, Inc. The plaintiffs, members of German or American armed forces, allege exposure to dangerous levels of ionizing radiation from radar systems, causing various types of cancers. Defendants moved to sever and dismiss the German plaintiffs' claims based on the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*, arguing that Germany is a more convenient forum. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It denied dismissal for German plaintiffs who alleged a connection to Fort Bliss or other U.S. military bases, citing U.S. local interest, but granted dismissal for German plaintiffs with no alleged connection to the United States.

Forum Non ConveniensSeveranceDismissalConsolidated ActionGerman PlaintiffsAmerican PlaintiffsRadar SystemsIonizing RadiationProduct LiabilityMilitary Training
References
32
Case No. MDL No. 2:08-MD-1954
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2011

In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated cases against Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. following a data breach that exposed payment-card information. Financial Institution Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, implied contract, negligence, misrepresentation, and violations of various state consumer-protection laws. The court dismissed many claims, some with prejudice due to futility and others without prejudice with leave to amend, citing issues like the economic-loss doctrine, lack of direct contractual relationship, and insufficient pleading of reliance. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss for the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, allowing it to proceed.

Data BreachMultidistrict LitigationEconomic Loss DoctrineNegligenceBreach of ContractMisrepresentationConsumer Protection LawMotion to DismissPleading StandardsThird-Party Beneficiary
References
155
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonano v. Southside United Housing Development Corp.

Plaintiff Ana D. Bonano filed an age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against her former employer, Southside United Housing Development Fund Corporation, and two individual defendants. Bonano alleged that she endured age-related harassment from colleagues, leading to her demotion and eventual termination. She sought to amend her complaint to include age-based hostile work environment claims. The defendants opposed, arguing the amendment would be futile and untimely. The court, citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A. and National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, granted Bonano's motion, determining that the proposed amendment adequately alleged a hostile work environment and that the claims were timely under the continuing violation doctrine.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)ADEA ClaimsNYSHRL ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsStatute of LimitationsContinuing ViolationPleading Standards
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Semper v. New York Methodist Hospital

Plaintiff Melvina Semper sued New York Methodist Hospital and Joanna Zanko for employment discrimination under Title VII, along with state-law claims for tortious interference, breach of implied covenant, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted defendants' motion for partial dismissal. It found no individual liability for Zanko under Title VII, and deemed the Title VII claims against Methodist Hospital time-barred due to an untimely EEOC filing, with neither equitable tolling nor the continuing violation doctrine applicable. Plaintiff's state-law claims were dismissed, being either preempted by federal labor law or failing to state a plausible claim. As a result, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint as futile.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIEquitable TollingContinuing Violation DoctrineLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 PreemptionTortious InterferenceBreach of ContractEmotional DistressMotion to Dismiss
References
91
Case No. 14-CV-1574 (VEC)
Regular Panel Decision

Alroy v. City of New York Law Department

Plaintiff Daniel Alroy sued multiple defendants, including the City of New York Parks and Recreation Department and AvalonBay Communities, Inc., alleging deprivation of due process and abuse of process in connection with prior state court litigation. The state court litigation concerned the destruction of Alroy's sculpture and subsequent claims of fraudulent conduct by the defendants. The District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the plaintiff was essentially appealing a state-court judgment. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under Section 1983, citing absolute immunity for government attorneys and insufficient allegations against private entities. The action was dismissed with prejudice, concluding that amendment would be futile.

Rooker-Feldman doctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1) dismissalRule 12(b)(6) dismissalDue ProcessSection 1983Absolute ImmunityAbuse of ProcessFederal Question JurisdictionState Court Judgment
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 1,054 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