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. 3-94-122-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1995

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. State Board of Insurance, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Houston General Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, United States Fire Insurance Company

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (Facility) appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an order by the State Board of Insurance. The Board had ordered the Facility to indemnify several servicing companies for legal expenses incurred in litigation brought by Standard Financial Indemnity Company (SFIC). The Facility argued that Article 5.76-2, section 2.05(i) of the Texas Insurance Code, which states the Facility 'may not indemnify the servicing companies,' terminated the servicing companies' right to indemnification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the servicing companies had a vested contractual right to indemnification which arose when they entered into servicing company agreements, and that section 2.05(i) could not be applied retroactively to impair these vested rights. The court found that the law existing at the time the contracts were made, which included the Facility's bylaws allowing for indemnification, was incorporated into the agreements.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawContractual RightsVested RightsRetroactive Application of LawIndemnificationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance Code
References
32
Case No. 03-04-00342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2005

First American Title Insurance Company and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

First American Title Insurance Company and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, foreign title insurers in Texas, challenged the Comptroller's revised interpretation of retaliatory tax calculations. The new interpretation allowed insurers to include only 15% of the premium tax paid, instead of 100%, in determining their financial burden for retaliatory tax purposes, arguing that title agents bore the remaining 85%. The companies claimed this interpretation was incorrect and unconstitutional, leading to significantly higher taxes for foreign insurers. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the Comptroller's interpretation reasonable, consistent with the statutes, and constitutional, as it served the legitimate governmental purpose of deterring other states from imposing excessive taxes on Texas-based insurers.

Retaliatory TaxTitle InsurancePremium TaxInsurance LawTax LawStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionAdministrative Law
References
45
Case No. NO. 12-07-00224-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2009

Benchmark Insurance Company v. Home State County Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal by Benchmark Insurance Company against an interpleader order filed by Home State County Mutual Insurance Company. The trial court discharged Home State from the suit, enjoining Benchmark and Robert William Sullivan from further action against Home State, and released Home State from all liability. Benchmark raised five issues, challenging the calculation of its statutory lien and attorney's fees awarded to Wheeler. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in determining the statutory lien amount or Wheeler's attorney's fees.

InterpleaderWorkers' CompensationStatutory LienAttorney's FeesThird-Party ActionInsurance DisputeAppellate ReviewTexas LawCollisionJudgment Affirmation
References
1
Case No. NO. 03-98-00566-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1999

Texas Department of Insurance Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General Carole Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And Texas Public Finance Authority v. American Home Assurance Company and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's judgment in a tax refund case involving workers' compensation insurance. Appellees, two insurance companies, sued the State for a partial refund of taxes paid under protest, contending that a 1993 amendment to the Texas Insurance Code, Article 5.68(b), which expanded the tax base for certain maintenance taxes, did not apply to a separate surcharge tax. The amendment explicitly stated its application to Article 5.68 and Labor Code Section 403.002, but made no mention of the surcharge statute, Article 5.76-5. The appellate court found the language clear and unambiguous, concluding that the legislature's omission of the surcharge statute was deliberate and that the expanded definition of 'gross workers' compensation insurance premiums' applied only to the specified articles. Therefore, the State's assessment of the surcharge based on modified premiums was incorrect, and the district court's order for a refund was upheld.

Workers' CompensationInsurance TaxStatutory InterpretationTax BaseDeductible PlansTexas Insurance CodeTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewGross Premiums
References
28
Case No. 14-04-00651-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2007

Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc., Coastal Offshore Insurance Limited, and Lexington Insurance Company v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company

This insurance coverage dispute centers on whether United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G) had a duty to reimburse its insured, Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc., and two other carriers, Coastal Offshore Insurance Limited and Lexington Insurance Company, for costs incurred in settling a personal injury lawsuit. USF&G moved for summary judgment, arguing late notice, settlement without consent, and failure to cooperate by its insured. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, finding that USF&G failed to produce evidence of actual prejudice resulting from the insured's actions. The court clarified that for bodily injury and property damage claims, actual, not merely speculative, prejudice must be demonstrated to void coverage. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Insurance CoverageSummary JudgmentPrejudice (Insurance Law)Late Notice (Insurance)Voluntary Payment ClauseDuty to Cooperate (Insurance)IndemnificationContract LawAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
41
Case No. 03-11-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2012

Refugio Robles Rayas v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

Refugio Robles Rayas, a citizen of Mexico injured while working in Texas on an H-2B visa, appealed the transfer of venue in his workers' compensation claim. He initially filed suit in Maverick County against Texas Mutual Insurance Company and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSOP). The trial court granted the motions to transfer venue and moved the suit to Travis County, where it subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Texas Mutual and ICSOP. Rayas argued that Maverick County was the mandatory and proper venue because of its proximity to his residence in Mexico, as per the Texas Labor Code. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the labor code's mandatory venue provision for the employee's county of residence did not apply to a non-resident of Texas. Consequently, the general venue rule, making Travis County a proper venue due to Texas Mutual's principal place of business, was correctly applied. The court also rejected Rayas's arguments regarding violations of the 'open courts' provision and due process rights.

Workers' CompensationVenue TransferJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeTexas Civil Practice & Remedies CodeOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessNon-resident Claimant
References
24
Case No. 14-02-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Limited, and Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Limited, D/B/A Village Builders v. Great American Insurance Company, American Dynasty Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Markel American Insurance Company Gerling America Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Westchester Fire Ins Company

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute between homebuilder Lennar Corporation and its CGL insurance carriers over damages caused by defective stucco (EIFS) applied to homes. The court analyzed whether negligently defective construction constitutes an "occurrence" and distinguished between covered costs (repairing actual water damage) and non-covered costs (preventative EIFS replacement, overhead). While affirming summary judgment for several insurers due to unmet self-insured retentions based on individual homes as separate occurrences, the court reversed for American Dynasty and Markel, citing unresolved factual issues regarding "known loss" and policy conditions. Lennar's extra-contractual claims against American Dynasty were ultimately denied for lack of proven damages or statutory violations.

Insurance Policy InterpretationConstruction DefectsCommercial Liability InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimsStucco DefectsDuty to IndemnifySelf-Insured RetentionsKnown Loss PrincipleSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Law
References
96
Case No. 03-99-00719-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Southwestern Life Insurance Company v. Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas John Cornyn, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Southwestern Life Insurance Company appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of the State regarding insurance premium taxes. Southwestern sought to apply a 1989 tax credit, exceeding its premium tax liability for that year, against its 1990 premium tax liability, arguing the credit could be carried forward. The State contended the credit was only valid for the year the fees were paid. The Court of Appeals, focusing on statutory construction of Article 4.11 of the Texas Insurance Code, found no explicit carry-forward provision. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the credit for examination and valuation fees may only be offset against premium tax liability for the year in which the fees are paid, and unused credit cannot be carried forward or backward.

Tax CreditInsurance Premium TaxStatutory InterpretationCarry-Forward ProvisionAdministrative LawLegislative IntentTexas Insurance CodeSummary JudgmentExamination FeesValuation Fees
References
14
Case No. 03-00-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

All American Life Insurance Company American General Life Insurance Company American National Insurance Company American National Life Insurance Company of Texas IDS Life Insurance Company And USLIFE Life Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas

Several insurance companies appealed a district court judgment affirming the Comptroller's assessment of premium and maintenance taxes on 'internal rollover' transactions, where policyholders transfer accumulation values within the same company for new policies. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reviewed the construction of Texas Insurance Code articles 4.11 and 4.17 de novo. The court determined that 'internal rollovers' do not involve funds being 'received' or 'collected' by the insurance companies, as the funds remain within the company. Therefore, these transactions are not subject to the premium and maintenance taxes. The judgment of the district court was reversed in part, and the case was remanded for a determination of the refund amounts owed to the companies.

Insurance LawTax LawPremium TaxInternal RolloversStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of AppealsInsurance CompaniesComptrollerGross PremiumsTax Refund
References
9
Case No. 04-25-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company v. Javier A. Libson, Nosbil, Inc., Jose Luis Ramirez, Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company

Appellants Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company appealed a no-evidence summary judgment. Cantu's claims of negligence per se, negligent hiring, training, retention, and negligent entrustment were affirmed. However, the summary judgment for Cantu's ordinary negligence claims was reversed and remanded. Additionally, the judgment favoring the insurance defendants (Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company) was also reversed, as their motion for summary judgment was not properly heard. The case involved a collision between Cantu and Jose Luis Ramirez, an employee of Nosbil, Inc., in foggy conditions, leading to Cantu suing for negligence and insurance claims.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseDuty of CareBreach of DutyCausationInsurance ClaimsVicarious Liability
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 26,404 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