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

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc. v. Ernesto Pineda

This appeal concerns a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc. against attorney Ernesto Pineda. Border Demolition alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, claiming Pineda failed to defend them in an underlying wrongful discharge suit despite an alleged implied attorney-client relationship. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Pineda on the breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims, deeming them impermissible fracturing of the legal malpractice claim. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the legal malpractice claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the implied attorney-client relationship and Pineda's duty of care. The case has been remanded for further proceedings on the legal malpractice claim.

Legal MalpracticeAttorney DutyImplied ContractAttorney-Client RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealProfessional NegligenceBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractTexas Court of AppealsEl Paso District
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Houston Lighting & Power Co.

The City of Austin appealed a take-nothing judgment against Houston Lighting & Power Company and Houston Industries, Inc. (HL&P) concerning a jointly owned nuclear power plant. Austin alleged breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), asserting HL&P's failures as project manager led to significant cost overruns. The trial court had sustained HL&P's special exceptions regarding an implied duty of skill and care and found no causal link between HL&P's actions and increased project costs. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the duty of reasonable skill and care was not implied in the participation agreement and that the jury's findings were supported by the evidence.

Breach of contractFraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActNuclear power plant constructionProject managementUtility industry disputeImplied duty of careJury instructionsHearsay evidenceFactual sufficiency of evidence
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texstar North America, Inc. v. Ladd Petroleum Corp.

Texstar North America, Inc. sued Ladd Petroleum Corporation for alleged breach of a joint operating agreement concerning the Zalman No. 1 well. Texstar sought injunctions, a declaratory judgment, and damages, arguing Ladd's refusal to consent to a fracture stimulation procedure violated implied duties of mutual cooperation and good faith. Ladd filed a counterclaim, asserting the agreement's terms allowed it to withhold consent as the well was producing in paying quantities. The trial court granted summary judgment for Ladd on Texstar's claims and later for Texstar on Ladd's counterclaim regarding future proposals and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the joint operating agreement unambiguous, rejecting implied duties, and upholding the discretion in denying attorney's fees for the counterclaim.

Joint Operating AgreementBreach of ContractOil and Gas LawSummary JudgmentImplied DutyGood Faith and Fair DealingMutual CooperationNon-Consent OperationsRework ProcedureDeclaratory Judgment Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. City of Midlothian

Billy Ray Allen, a maintenance worker for the City of Midlothian, was injured on the job in April 1989 and filed a workers' compensation claim. After settling, his employment was terminated on April 5, 1991, for failing to provide a full medical release. Allen sued the City for retaliatory discharge, later adding City Manager Robert G. Powers and City Secretary June Smith as defendants, and introducing claims including breach of implied duty of good faith, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy. The defendants sought summary judgment based on sovereign immunity and statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment against Powers and Smith individually for retaliatory discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy due to the two-year statute of limitations. However, it reversed and remanded claims against them for breach of implied duty of good faith and tortious interference, and all claims from Allen's third amended petition, finding the limitations issue unpreserved or summary judgment improper for new claims. The court also affirmed summary judgment for the City and Powers/Smith in their representative capacities on most claims due to sovereign immunity, but reversed and remanded the retaliatory discharge claim, holding that municipalities waive sovereign immunity for such claims under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.

Retaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsSovereign ImmunityDue DiligenceTexas Workers' Compensation ActTexas Civil ProcedureImplied Duty of Good FaithIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious Interference
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Hale

Linda Hale sued E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing after E-Z Mart stopped paying her workers' compensation benefits following a workplace injury. E-Z Mart, a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, had implemented a self-insurance program, assuring employees that claims would be handled like traditional workers' compensation. The jury found E-Z Mart breached its contract and duty of good faith, and the trial court awarded Hale significant damages. On appeal, E-Z Mart argued no contract existed and that the duty of good faith did not apply to a self-insured entity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, deeming the existence of an implied contract and holding that E-Z Mart, by assuming the role of an insurer, was subject to the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court also rejected E-Z Mart's statute of limitations defense.

Workers' CompensationSelf-InsuranceBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingImplied ContractTexas LawStatute of LimitationsEmployer LiabilityEmployee BenefitsAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,471 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