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. 02-20-00225-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2021

Steven Hernandez, Francisco Azuero, and Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America v. Combined Insurance Company of America

Individual Appellants Steven Hernandez and Francisco Azuero, along with Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America, appealed a temporary injunction order granted to Combined Insurance Company of America. Combined alleged that Hernandez and Azuero, former district sales managers, violated non-solicitation and confidentiality covenants in their employment agreements by soliciting Combined's employees and policyholders after joining Family Heritage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings that the covenants were reasonable, that Individual Appellants probably solicited Combined's policyholders and agents, and that Combined would suffer imminent and irreparable injury. However, the court reversed and remanded the injunction's form for lacking reasonable detail regarding identified parties and geographic scope. Crucially, the court sustained Family Heritage's appeal, vacating and dissolving the injunction against it, finding no evidence of tortious interference or an agency relationship to support vicarious liability for Individual Appellants' acts.

Temporary InjunctionNoncompete CovenantNonsolicitation AgreementConfidential InformationTortious InterferenceIndependent ContractorVicarious LiabilityAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewContract Breach
References
77
Case No. 03-15-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. And Audi of America, Inc. v. John Walker III, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board The Honorable Michael J. O'Malley, the Honorable Penny A. Wilkov, in Their Official Capacities as Administrative Law Judges for the State Office

This case involves an appeal filed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi of America, Inc. (Appellants) against John Walker III, Chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, and Administrative Law Judges Michael J. O'Malley and Penny A. Wilkov (Appellees). Appellants sought injunctive relief in district court to prevent Appellees from proceeding with an allegedly ultra vires remand of an administrative contested case after a Proposal for Decision (PFD) had been issued. The district court dismissed the lawsuit based on governmental immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellants argue that Appellees' actions, including ordering the remand and reopening evidence, exceeded their statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act and Texas Occupations Code, making governmental immunity inapplicable and exhaustion of remedies unnecessary.

Administrative LawUltra Vires ActsGovernmental ImmunityExhaustion of RemediesJudicial ReviewAgency AuthorityState Office of Administrative HearingsRemandContested CasesStatutory Interpretation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2012

Delaney v. Bank of America Corp.

John Delaney sued Bank of America (BoA) alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and breach of an oral contract related to his internal transfer. Delaney claimed his termination was age-discriminatory and that BoA reneged on a promise regarding account assignments and compensation. BoA moved for summary judgment, asserting Delaney failed to show a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the alleged oral contract was too vague, superseded by discretionary bonus policies, and that Delaney was an at-will employee. The court found insufficient admissible evidence for age discrimination, supporting BoA's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (reduction in force based on performance). Additionally, the court ruled the oral agreement lacked definiteness and was overridden by BoA's discretionary bonus plan, and as an at-will employee, Delaney's termination was permissible. Consequently, the court granted BoA's motion for summary judgment on both claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentReduction in ForceAt-Will EmploymentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBut-For CausationOral AgreementDiscretionary Bonus
References
65
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08809
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2017

Dereveneaux v. Hyundai Motor America

Keith Dereveneaux, the plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants Hyundai Motor America, Trade Show Fabrications, Inc., Innocean Worldwide Americas, LLC, and Trade Show Specialists Corp. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal against Hyundai Motor America because the plaintiff failed to oppose the initial motion for relief. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Trade Show Specialists Corp., concluding that the plaintiff was a special employee, which barred his personal injury claim under Workers' Compensation Law. Additionally, summary judgment was affirmed for Trade Show Fabrications, Inc., and Innocean Worldwide Americas, LLC, regarding Labor Law § 200 and § 241 (6) claims, as they demonstrated no control over the work site and the cited Industrial Code provisions were inapplicable. The plaintiff's opposition failed to raise any triable issues of fact.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Premises LiabilityWorksite ControlIndustrial CodeAppellate ProcedureAggrieved Party
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1999

Capstead Mortgage Corp. v. Sun America Mortgage Corp.

Capstead Mortgage Corporation challenged a summary judgment ruling which denied its claims against Sun America Mortgage Corporation. Capstead had purchased mortgage loans from Sun America, including one where Kadeem Omari defaulted, leading Capstead to demand repurchase and subsequently foreclose on the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sun America based on the doctrine of election of remedies. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Capstead's action of bidding the entire balance at the foreclosure sale and taking title to the property constituted an election of remedies. Furthermore, the court found that the mortgage loan ceased to exist upon foreclosure, thus extinguishing Sun America's warranties and representations.

Summary JudgmentElection of RemediesMortgage LoanForeclosureBreach of ContractWarrantiesAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureReal Estate LawContractual Agreements
References
18
Case No. 05-19-01013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2020

Luxottica of America Inc. F/K/A Luxottica Retail North America Inc. and EyeMed Vision Care LLC, Gutman Vision, Inc., Alex Gutman, and Milana Gutman v. Jeffrey Gray, Dawn Gray and Brave Optical, Inc.

The case is an interlocutory appeal from the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas concerning the denial of motions to dismiss filed by Luxottica of America Inc. and EyeMed Vision Care LLC (Luxottica Appellants), and Gutman Vision, Inc., Alex Gutman, and Milana Gutman (Gutman Appellants). Jeffrey Gray, Dawn Gray, and Brave Optical, Inc. (Gray Appellees) sued the appellants for claims including conspiracy to commit fraud, alleging that the appellants failed to disclose crucial information during negotiations for the purchase of two Pearle Vision optical stores. Specifically, appellees claimed appellants withheld the fact that EyeMed had terminated its contract with Gutman Vision due to fraudulent billing practices prior to the sale. Appellants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their communications were protected. The trial court denied these motions by operation of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, concluding that the appellees' claims were based on the appellants' alleged failure to disclose information or misrepresentations, rather than on communications protected by the TCPA's rights of free speech or association.

fraudconspiracyTexas Citizens Participation ActTCPAinterlocutory appealbusiness disputenondisclosureEyeMedLuxotticaPearle Vision
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

America West Airlines, Inc. v. Tope

Michael Tope, a former employee of America West Airlines, Inc., successfully sued the airline for discriminatory termination under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act after an on-the-job injury. The jury found America West unlawfully discharged Tope and awarded damages. On appeal, America West challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding discrimination, Tope's mitigation of damages, and the mental anguish award. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on discriminatory discharge and past mental anguish, but found the future mental anguish award factually insufficient. The court also upheld the exclusion of expert testimony from Tope's treating social worker. The case was reversed and remanded, subject to Tope's voluntary remittitur of future mental anguish damages.

Discriminatory TerminationWorker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeMental AnguishDamage MitigationExpert Testimony ExclusionAppellate ReviewTexas Employment LawJury VerdictCircumstantial Evidence
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2006

Wilson v. Sirius America Insurance

Stephen Wilson, a foreman for a plumbing subcontractor, was injured at a construction site and, along with his wife, sued the general contractor, K.J. Gold, LLC, for Labor Law violations. K.J. Gold's insurer, Sirius America Insurance Company, disclaimed coverage based on an exclusion requiring a prior written indemnification contract between K.J. Gold and the subcontractor, which was absent. After K.J. Gold defaulted in the underlying action, the Wilsons commenced a new action against Sirius America to recover the unsatisfied judgment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the Wilsons, deeming the exclusion void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the insurance exclusion itself did not violate General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, and since K.J. Gold never met the policy's condition of obtaining a written indemnification agreement, Sirius America was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Insurance Coverage DisputeIndemnification AgreementSummary Judgment AppealConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsPolicy ExclusionGeneral Obligations LawContract InterpretationAppellate ReversalThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Poly-America, L.P.

Johnny Luna, an employee of Poly-America, L.P., filed a retaliatory-discharge suit after sustaining a work injury and being fired. His employment contract included an arbitration agreement with provisions limiting remedies (no punitive damages or reinstatement), requiring fee-splitting, and limiting discovery. Luna challenged the agreement's unconscionability. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the remedy-limitation provisions were substantively unconscionable and void under Texas law but were severable due to a severability clause. The Court also held that the trial court properly left the assessment of fee-splitting and discovery-limitation unconscionability to the arbitrator, as applied during the arbitration process, and conditionally granted Poly-America's petition for mandamus to compel arbitration after severance of the voided remedy clauses.

Arbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityWorkers' Compensation ActRetaliatory DischargeEmployment ContractSeverability ClauseFee-SplittingDiscovery LimitationsPunitive DamagesReinstatement
References
78
Case No. 05-16-00875-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2018

Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company, America First Insurance Company, the Netherlands Insurance Company, and America First Lloyds Insurance Company A.K.A. America First Insurance Company v. GLS Masonry, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by several insurance companies (Appellants) against GLS Masonry, Inc. (Appellee) after a take-nothing judgment in their suit to collect unpaid insurance premiums. The dispute centered on whether GLS's masonry workers were independent contractors or employees for premium calculation purposes, particularly for workers' compensation and general liability policies. The Appellants argued that GLS owed additional premiums due to audits reclassifying workers as employees and based on a lack of liability insurance for subcontractors. The trial court sided with GLS, finding that the insurance companies failed to establish the applicability of certain labor code provisions and did not sufficiently prove that GLS owed additional premiums, especially considering evidence that the workers were independent contractors and payments were made on policies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Insurance DisputeUnpaid PremiumsCommercial General LiabilityPremium AuditIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee ClassificationBreach of ContractTexas Appellate LawFactual Sufficiency ReviewSworn Account Claim
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,636 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