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

Malkiewicz v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.

This memorandum addresses whether a guarantor of a self-insured employer's workers' compensation obligations is immune from liability under Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Law, similar to an insurer. Plaintiffs John Malkiewicz and Tim Lemons, along with their spouses, sued defendant R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Inc., the guarantor for its self-insured subsidiary Donnelley Printing Company, alleging negligence in providing safety services after they were injured. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that as a guarantor, R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Inc. is entitled to the same immunity as a workers' compensation insurer. This decision aims to encourage safety initiatives by guarantors without fear of increased liability and maintain an uninhibited choice between insured and self-insured status under state law.

Workers' Compensation ImmunitySelf-Insured EmployerGuarantor LiabilityParent-Subsidiary RelationshipNegligenceSafety ServicesStatutory InterpretationFirst ImpressionMotion to DismissTennessee Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mid-South Telecommunications Co. v. Best

This case addresses when a creditor's claim against a debt guarantor accrues under Texas law. Mid-South Telecommunications Company loaned $250,000 to VidiMedix Corporation, with Norman K. Best and Philip W. Faris, Jr. serving as guarantors. VidiMedix defaulted on the promissory note on December 31, 1999, prompting Mid-South to demand payment from the guarantors. Mid-South filed suit against Best and Faris in May 2004 for breach of contract under the guaranty. Best and Faris successfully argued that the claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations, contending the cause of action accrued upon VidiMedix's initial default. The district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Best and Faris was affirmed on appeal, with the court concluding that Mid-South's claim against the guarantors accrued on December 31, 1999.

Statute of LimitationsGuaranty AgreementBreach of ContractDebt AccrualSummary JudgmentTexas Civil PracticePromissory NoteCreditor RightsDebtor DefaultAbsolute Guaranty
References
23
Case No. 03-04-00586-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2006

Mid-South Telecommunications Company v. Norman K. Best and Phillip W. Faris, Jr.

This case addresses the accrual of a creditor's claim against a debt guarantor. Mid-South Telecommunications Company loaned money to VidiMedix Corporation, with Norman K. Best and Philip W. Faris, Jr. as guarantors. VidiMedix defaulted on December 31, 1999. Mid-South sued Best and Faris in May 2004 for breach of guaranty. Best and Faris argued the four-year statute of limitations barred the claim, contending it accrued on the default date. The district court agreed, granting summary judgment for Best and Faris. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Mid-South's claim against the guarantors accrued on December 31, 1999, when VidiMedix defaulted, thus the claims were time-barred.

Contract LawGuarantyStatute of LimitationsDebt DefaultBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCreditor ClaimsPromissory NoteTexas Law
References
23
Case No. 14-18-00062-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2019

Michael Lee Wyrick A/K/A Mike Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke A/K/A Greg Ruhnke v. Business Bank of Texas, N. A.

This case involves two individual guarantors, Michael Lee Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke, appealing a trial court's summary judgment that enforced their $3 million promissory note guaranty in favor of Business Bank of Texas, N.A., and dismissed their tort claims. The guarantors argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment due to contract defenses like fraudulent inducement and mutual mistake, and affirmative counterclaims including fraud and tortious interference. The appellate court found the guarantors lacked standing for some counterclaims and failed to raise fact issues for others and their defenses. The court also reviewed a permanent anti-suit injunction issued by the trial court, concluding it was an abuse of discretion as the circumstances did not warrant such extraordinary relief. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the guaranties and counterclaims, but modified it to dissolve the anti-suit injunction.

Guaranty enforcementPromissory noteSummary judgment appealFraudulent inducementNegligent misrepresentationMutual mistakeEquitable estoppelTortious interferenceNegligence claimsGross negligence claims
References
76
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03130 [238 AD3d 589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Empanada Fresca LLC v. 1 BK St. Corp.

Empanada Fresca LLC (tenant) and Jose Rodriguez (guarantor) appealed a Supreme Court order regarding their lease dispute with 1 BK Street Corp. (landlord), which involved claims of fraud, breach of lease, and a "good guy" guaranty. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the tenant's claims for fraudulent inducement, rescission, promissory estoppel, and breach of implied covenant, deeming them duplicative or inapplicable. However, the court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the guarantor, Jose Rodriguez, thereby dismissing the landlord's counterclaim for breach of guaranty. This modification was based on the finding that the guarantor had substantially complied with the terms of the "good guy" guaranty, despite a three-day short notice to vacate, as the landlord suffered no prejudice. Additionally, the Appellate Division upheld the tenant's right to amend its complaint to seek consequential damages, citing public policy against parties avoiding liability for gross negligence.

Contract LawCommercial LeaseFraudulent InducementBreach of LeaseGood Guy GuarantySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRent AbatementPre-Existing ConditionsGas Service Interruption
References
15
Case No. CV-23-0571, CV-23-1310
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Judith Patterson-Djalo

Claimant Judith Pattertson-Djalo sustained work-related injuries, leading to an established schedule loss of use (SLU) award. Oriska Insurance Company, the carrier, and Rashbi Management Inc., a guarantor of employer premiums, appealed decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling that Rashbi was not a necessary party in interest and lacked standing, as the carrier was solely liable for indemnity and medical costs. The Board also imposed a penalty on Oriska Insurance Company for failing to timely pay the SLU award. The Appellate Division affirmed both Board decisions, clarifying that contractual disputes between the carrier, employer, and guarantor regarding retrospective premiums were outside the Board's jurisdiction and not proper for appeal within the workers' compensation claim.

Schedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewParty in InterestStandingRetrospective Rating ProgramPremium GuarantorPenalty for Non-PaymentJurisdiction DisputeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. 01-14-00246-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2015

Allen L. Berry, Joseph D. McCord, and Robert G. Taylor, II v. Encore Bank

This case concerns a $6 million loan from Encore Bank to BLyn II Holding, LLC, guaranteed by Allen L. Berry, Joseph D. McCord, and Robert G. Taylor, II, for a luxury yacht refurbishment. Despite the yacht being collateral, a pre-existing maritime lien by the refurbisher, Crimson Yachts, took priority, leading to the yacht's sale and loss of collateral for Encore. Encore sued the guarantors for the outstanding loan balance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Encore, rejecting the guarantors' defenses of statute of limitations, mutual mistake regarding the lien priority, and material alteration of the contract. It also dismissed claims of negligent misrepresentation and negligence due to a contractual disclaimer of reliance and the economic loss rule.

Appellate LawContract LawGuaranty AgreementLoan DefaultMaritime LiensMutual MistakeEconomic Loss RuleNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsSummary Judgment
References
82
Case No. ADJ4069708 (VNO 0380892) ADJ691020 (VNO 0380894)
Regular
Oct 28, 2011

CAROL ENRIQUEZ vs. VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The applicant sustained two industrial injuries as a secretary in 1994 and 1996. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decisions, finding applicant is 100% permanently disabled and ordered apportionment between the two injuries. The Board amended the decisions to include the left hip in the 1994 injury and clarified CIGA's role as a guarantor, not an insurer. CIGA was relieved of administering future medical treatment awards, and reimbursement from the self-insured employer can be pursued in supplemental proceedings.

ApportionmentBenson exceptionCIGACompensable consequence injuriesIndustrial injuryPermanent disabilityReconsiderationSelf-insuredSuccessive injuriesVictor Valley Union High School District
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kreatsoulas v. Freights of the Levant Pride & the Levant Fortune

This admiralty action, brought by Peter Kreatsoulas, involves a $500,000 loan made to Levant Line, a steamship company, which is now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The loan was secured by personal guaranties from five individuals and an assignment of freights from the Owners of the vessels LEVANT PRIDE and LEVANT FORTUNE. The Personal Guarantors moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the contracts were not maritime. The court concluded that neither the personal guaranty nor the freight assignment contracts fell under federal admiralty jurisdiction, as they were too attenuated from maritime interests. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted, and the action was dismissed without prejudice.

Admiralty LawMaritime JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal GuarantyLoan AgreementPromissory NotesAssignment of FreightsMotion to DismissPendent Party JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Episode USA, Inc.

Episode USA, Inc., a debtor in chapter 11 bankruptcy, guaranteed a non-debtor affiliate's lease. The affiliate defaulted, leading the landlord, L.H. Charney Associates, to file a claim against Episode. Episode objected to the claim, seeking to cap the unsecured portion under § 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code and expunge the administrative priority claim. The court sustained Episode's objection, ruling that the § 502(b)(6) cap applies to debtor-guarantors and that the administrative priority claim was not justified as Episode received no benefit from the lease. However, the court rejected Episode's argument for a reduction of the unsecured claim based on mitigation, citing New York law.

BankruptcyLease GuaranteeLandlord-Tenant LawClaim ObjectionSection 502(b)(6)Administrative Priority ClaimDebtor-in-PossessionUnsecured ClaimsLease TerminationGuarantor Liability
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 23 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