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. 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. 03-03-00458-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

Anderson-Clayton Bros. Funeral Home, Inc. Restland of Dallas, Inc. Restland Funeral Home Singing Hills Funeral Home, Inc. Laurel Land Funeral Home of Forth Worth, Inc. Blue Bonnet Hills Funeral Home, Inc. And Blue Bonnet Hills Memorial Park, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This case addresses the Texas franchise tax treatment of earnings from out-of-state investments made by Texas prepaid funeral benefits trusts. The Appellants, a group of affiliated funeral homes (Anderson-Clayton), argued these earnings should be considered out-of-state receipts for franchise tax apportionment. The Comptroller of Public Accounts contended they were Texas receipts, leading to a higher tax bill for Anderson-Clayton. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the 'accounting methods' provision of the tax code did not dictate the sourcing of receipts, and under the 'location of the payor' rule, the Texas-domiciled trusts were deemed the payors, making the investment income Texas receipts.

Franchise TaxInvestment EarningsPrepaid Funeral TrustsTax ApportionmentTexas Tax CodeLocation of Payor RuleSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAccounting MethodsEarned Surplus
References
82
Case No. OAK 293546, OAK 295646 OAK 295645, OAK 322365
Regular
Aug 22, 2008

LAURA BERRY vs. GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., AIG CLAIM SERVICES, ROSSMOOR MEDICAL CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Board denied American Home Assurance Co.'s petition and granted State Compensation Insurance Fund's petition for reconsideration, affirming the June 5, 2008 Findings, Award and Order, except for the employer's identity, which was deferred for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative TraumaTemporary DisabilityPermanent and StationaryBanker for AwardEmployer IdentificationSeparate EntitiesDevelop the RecordFindings Award and Order
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02757
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2022

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. State of New York

This case involves Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., as an assignee, appealing orders that denied its motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract claim against the New York State Insurance Fund (SIF). Home Depot sought coverage under an Employer's Liability Policy issued by SIF to Bryan's Home Improvement Corporation, covering damages for employee injuries where recovery is permitted by law, specifically for

Breach of ContractEmployer's Liability PolicyCollateral EstoppelGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAssignee Rights
References
4
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. 02-08-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2011

Paul Robertson v. Home State County Mutual Insurance Company

Appellant Paul Robertson obtained a judgment against his employer, Ray Redi-Mix, Inc., for personal injuries sustained on the job. Redi-Mix's transportation insurer, Home State County Mutual Insurance Company, denied coverage based on policy exclusions. The trial court granted summary judgment for Home State, finding coverage was excluded under both workers' compensation and employee exclusions. Robertson appealed, arguing that the 'domestic employees' exception to the employee exclusion should apply to him as an employee working in the United States and not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court, after en banc reconsideration, affirmed the trial court's judgment, interpreting 'domestic employees' to mean persons engaged in employment incidental to a personal residence, consistent with Texas Labor and Transportation Codes, and found Robertson's interpretation unreasonable.

Insurance coveragePolicy exclusionsWorkers' compensation lawEmployee exclusionDomestic employees exceptionStatutory interpretationCommercial automobile liabilitySummary judgmentAppellate procedureTexas law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Insurance v. American Home Assurance Co.

This case involves American Home Assurance Company and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (appellees) suing the State (appellants) for a partial refund of workers' compensation insurance taxes. The core of the dispute is the interpretation of a 1993 amendment to the Texas Insurance Code, article 5.68(b), and its application to three types of workers' compensation maintenance taxes: general, operations, and surcharge. Appellees contended that the amendment, which expanded the tax base to include modified annual premiums for deductible plans, applied only to the general and operations maintenance taxes, not the surcharge. The district court sided with the appellees, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The appellate court concluded that the legislature's explicit language in article 5.68(b) limited its application to only the general and operations maintenance taxes, and the 'same manner' clause in the surcharge statute referred solely to tax collection mechanics, not the tax base definition.

Workers' Compensation TaxesInsurance PremiumsTax Base DefinitionStatutory InterpretationTexas Insurance CodeTexas Labor CodeSurcharge TaxDeductible PlansSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04054
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2023

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Episcopal Church Home & Affiliates, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (plaintiff) assumed administration of the Long Term Care Risk Management Group, a self-insurance trust, and levied assessments against its former members (defendants) to cover an accumulated deficit. Defendants appealed an order granting plaintiff partial summary judgment, raising issues regarding the summons's jurisdictional sufficiency, the timeliness of plaintiff's subsequent assessments, and the applicability of a collection fee. The Appellate Division determined the summons was jurisdictionally sound and that the statutory 120-day period for levying assessments was directory, not mandatory, thus upholding the validity of later assessments. However, the Court modified the order by dismissing the plaintiff's claim for a collection fee, ruling that the fluctuating and unliquidated nature of the deficit did not meet the "liquidated sum" requirement of State Finance Law § 18. Consequently, the appeal was partially dismissed, the order and judgment modified to remove the collection fee, and affirmed in all other respects.

Group Self-Insurance TrustWorkers' Compensation AssessmentsStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of AssessmentsJurisdictional DefectSummary JudgmentState Finance LawCollection FeesLiquidated DebtAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

The Texas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (the Board) sued the Attorney General seeking a declaration that certain chiropractic records were exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). The records were part of the Board's investigation file concerning a complaint, which the Board considered confidential under Occupations Code section 201.206(a). The Attorney General's Open Records Division (ORD) initially opined that patient access provisions (sections 201.404 and 201.405) created an exception, requiring disclosure with proper consent. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Attorney General, mandating disclosure. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the patient access provisions did not create an exception to the confidentiality afforded the Board's investigation files, thus the documents were exempt from mandatory disclosure.

Public Information ActConfidentialityChiropractic RecordsInvestigation FilesStatutory ConstructionSummary JudgmentPatient AccessGovernmental BodyAttorney General OpinionAppellate Review
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 14,151 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