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
Mar 05, 1998

Fort Worth Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Enserch Corp.

Fort Worth Hotel Limited Partnership (Fort Worth Hilton) appealed a jury verdict in its suit against Ensereh Corporation d/b/a Lone Star Gas Company (Lone Star Gas) following a gas explosion that allegedly damaged its hotel. Fort Worth Hilton contended the jury erred in not finding gross negligence and in awarding zero damages for business interruption and lost income. Lone Star Gas raised cross-points concerning the legal sufficiency of evidence for repair costs and alleged perjury. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of no gross negligence and found Fort Worth Hilton failed to present sufficient evidence of the reasonableness of repairs. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Lone Star Gas.

Gas ExplosionHotel DamageNegligenceGross NegligenceDamagesBusiness InterruptionStructural DamageCollateral EstoppelExpert TestimonyEvidentiary Rulings
References
48
Case No. ADJ809466 (SFO 0476863), ADJ2555852 (OAK 0329065), ADJ3801383 (OAK 0329066)
Regular
Aug 25, 2009

MINA MESIC vs. HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION (HILTON SAN FRANCISCO & TOWERS), ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY administered by SPECIALTY RISK PLEASANTON

This case involves a dispute over an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) reports on applicant Mina Mesic's industrial injuries and permanent disability apportionment. The defendant, Hilton Hotels Corporation, sought a new AME, alleging the current AME's reports were inconsistent and failed to comply with Labor Code section 4663. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration, as the challenged order was not a final determination. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, as the defendant could still challenge the AME's reports at trial. The WCJ's order merely denied the request for a new AME, allowing the current AME's reports to be weighed as evidence.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalApportionmentCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryPermanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4663Benson v. Permanente Medical GroupBrodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawler v. Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture

Dalia H. Lawler, a hotel maid supervisor, sustained injuries when a ceiling collapsed, leading her to file for workers' compensation and receive benefits. Subsequently, she sued her employer, Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture, and its members, Hilton Hotels Corporation (HHC) and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, along with Commerce Garage Joint Venture, for negligence under premises liability. The defendants were granted summary judgment, asserting immunity under the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. On appeal, Lawler challenged the trial court's decision, arguing that the joint venture and its members were not all her employers. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that individual members of a joint venture are considered employers for workers' compensation purposes, thus barring Lawler's separate negligence claim.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentJoint VentureEmployer ImmunityExclusive RemedyNegligenceTexas Civil ProcedureAffidavit CompetencyAgency Principles
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vittoria Corp. v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council

Vittoria Corporation filed a petition to stay arbitration demanded by the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council under a collective bargaining agreement. The proceeding, initially in New York State Supreme Court, was removed to federal court. Vittoria argued the arbitration clause did not apply to restaurant concessionaires or a newly constructed hotel, and that certain conditions for a neutrality provision were not met. District Judge Pauley denied Vittoria's motion, finding the dispute arbitrable due to a broad arbitration clause. The Court also found that the monetary costs of arbitration do not constitute irreparable harm. Consequently, the Council's cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted, but its request for reimbursement of expenses and attorneys' fees was denied.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationFederal JurisdictionAlter Ego DoctrineIrreparable HarmNeutrality ProvisionRestaurant Concessionaire
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hotel Greystone Corp. v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council

This case involves a petition by Hotel Greystone to stay an arbitration initiated by the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO (the "Union"). The dispute arose from an arbitrator's decision to reconsider a previous award, which the Hotel opposed based on timeliness and the doctrine of functus officio. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kaplan, denied the Hotel's motion for a permanent stay of arbitration. The court found that the Union's cross-motion to compel arbitration was timely under the National Labor Relations Act and that the doctrine of functus officio did not apply due to the parties' agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that New York's CPLR time constraints for modification of awards did not bar reconsideration given the contractual provisions. Consequently, the Union's cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRANLRAFunctus OfficioReconsideration of AwardStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationLabor LawContract Interpretation
References
15
Case No. 09-22-00376-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Interflow Factors Corporation v. Hilton Holdings, LLC

This case involves a dispute between Interflow Factors Corporation, a factoring company, and Hilton Holdings, LLC, an account debtor. Interflow purchased accounts owed to Gulf Coast Security & Investigation by Hilton, and Hilton was notified of this assignment. Despite the notification, Hilton later paid Gulf Coast directly instead of Interflow, totaling $155,152.58. Interflow sought to collect these funds from Hilton, arguing that under UCC section 9.406, Hilton was obligated to pay the assignee. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Hilton and denied Interflow's. The Court of Appeals reversed both decisions, holding that the Factoring Agreement constituted a valid security agreement and that Hilton could not rely on estoppel or a Rule 11 Agreement between Interflow and Gulf Coast to avoid its obligation to Interflow. The case was remanded for a determination of attorney's fees, costs, and interest.

Factoring AgreementAccount DebtorAssignment of AccountsUniform Commercial CodeSecurity InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawBreach of ContractRule 11 Agreement
References
24
Case No. 14-09-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2009

in Re Investment Capital Corporation and Service Corporation International

Relators Investment Capital Corporation (ICC) and Service Corporation International (SCI) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Kathleen Stone of Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County to grant leave to designate SCI Funeral & Cemetary Purchasing Cooperative, Inc. as a responsible third party in a wrongful death suit. The underlying suit was initiated by the widow of Harold Israel, who suffered fatal injuries after falling in a parking garage. The trial court denied the relators' motion to designate SCI Funeral as a responsible third party. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the relators had an adequate remedy at law and that the case did not present the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify mandamus relief, distinguishing it from precedent such as In re Arthur Andersen.

Mandamus ReliefResponsible Third Party DesignationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate RemedyWrongful Death SuitNegligence ClaimsGross NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Case No. 09-22-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Lexington Insurance Company v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation

This case from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal by Lexington Insurance Company against Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation. Lexington challenged a summary judgment that awarded Exxon $25 million under an umbrella insurance policy. The dispute centered on whether Exxon qualified as an additional insured under a policy issued to Brock Services, LTD, and if specific policy exclusions for workers' compensation and employer's liability applied. The court affirmed the arbitration finding that Exxon was an additional insured but ultimately reversed the trial court's judgment. It ruled that the employer's liability exclusion applied, given Exxon's status as a statutory employer of Brock's injured employees through its Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP), thus entitling Exxon to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Consequently, Lexington was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Exxon, and the awards for damages, attorney's fees, and interest were reversed.

Insurance Policy CoverageUmbrella InsuranceWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer's Liability ExclusionExclusive RemedyOCIPStatutory EmployerAdditional Insured StatusArbitration ReviewSummary Judgment Reversal
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2007

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Omni Hotels Management Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Mohamed Elmougy filed a lawsuit against Omni Hotels Management Corporation, Omni Hotels Corporation, and Omni Hotels of Texas Inc., alleging constructive discharge, national origin discrimination, and religious discrimination, along with retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Elmougy, a Muslim of Egyptian origin, was the General Manager of Omni's Mandalay Hotel. The plaintiffs claimed that Omni's actions, including temporarily reassigning sales responsibilities and offering a transfer to a different hotel, created intolerable working conditions, forcing Elmougy's resignation. Omni contended its decisions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons, primarily Elmougy's poor financial performance at the Mandalay and declining employee morale. The court found that Elmougy's resignation was voluntary and driven by personal reasons, such as his father's illness and his own hotel purchase. Concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove constructive discharge or that Omni's stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation, the court granted judgment in favor of the defendants. Furthermore, the court ruled that Omni Hotels Corporation and Omni Hotels of Texas Inc. were not statutory employers and thus not liable.

Employment DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationConstructive DischargeRetaliationTitle VIIMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBurden-shifting AnalysisPretextFederal Court
References
67
Case No. 14-18-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2019

James Construction Group, LLC, Primoris Services Corporation v. Westlake Chemical Corporation

James Construction Group, LLC and Primoris Services Corporation appealed a judgment concerning contract claims with Westlake Chemical Corporation. Chemical had initially sued James for breach of a construction contract, citing safety violations and a failure to indemnify. The jury found James liable for breach of contract and indemnification, leading to damages and attorney's fees awarded against Primoris due to a guaranty. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's findings on James's liability and the attorney's fees against Primoris. Crucially, the court reversed the trial court's judgment awarding James damages on its counterclaim, clarifying that a contractual waiver of consequential damages serves as an affirmative defense rather than a basis for a breach-of-contract claim.

Contract LawBreach of ContractConstruction ContractIndemnificationGuaranty AgreementAttorney's FeesConsequential DamagesWaiver of DamagesConditions PrecedentSubstantial Compliance
References
136
Showing 1-10 of 3,902 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