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

Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas D/B/A Bonded Builders Warranty Group, Daniel Avila, Grisele Edith Arizpe, and AA Builders, LLC v. Patricia Rockoff

Patricia Rockoff purchased a home from AA Builders, LLC, which included a warranty from Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas (BBWG). After discovering structural defects, Rockoff filed claims against both AA Builders and BBWG, subsequently initiating a lawsuit. Both AA Builders and BBWG moved to compel arbitration based on the warranty's terms, but the trial court denied these motions. On interlocutory appeal, the appellate court reversed, affirming the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. The court rejected arguments regarding the unconscionability of arbitrator selection and limitations on remedies, but remanded the case for the trial court to determine if the arbitration costs render the agreement substantively unconscionable after an arbitrator is appointed.

Interlocutory AppealArbitrationUnconscionabilityHome WarrantyConstruction DefectsFederal Arbitration ActTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActContract LawProcedural UnconscionabilitySubstantive Unconscionability
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marino v. Perna

Claimant Marino sued defendant Perna for breach of warranty of title after purchasing a stolen automobile, which led to his son's arrest and the car's seizure. Perna had bought the car from third-party defendant Marshal Locascio at a traffic auction. The court found that Locascio, as a Marshal, was exempt from implied warranty of title under UCC 2-312, and the action against him was also barred by a one-year Statute of Limitations. However, the court ruled in favor of Marino against Perna for breach of warranty of title, awarding $1,200 for the car's value, but denying consequential damages for legal fees due to lack of foreseeability on Perna's part.

breach of warrantywarranty of titlestolen vehicleUniform Commercial CodeStatute of LimitationsMarshal salepublic auctionconsequential damagesautomobile saleimplied warranty
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PORT AUTHORITY OF NY AND NJ v. Allied Corp.

This Memorandum & Order addresses a motion to dismiss warranty claims in an action brought by plaintiffs against numerous asbestos product companies. Plaintiffs alleged various claims, including breach of express and implied warranties. Defendants sought dismissal of the warranty claims, asserting they were barred by the U.C.C. § 2-725 four-year statute of limitations and not revived by the "Toxic Tort Revival Act." The Court found that implied warranties could not meet the "explicit" future performance exception of U.C.C. § 2-725(2), and the alleged express warranties lacked explicit reference to future performance. Additionally, the Court ruled that the Toxic Tort Revival Act, intended for personal injury or property damage, did not apply to contract-based warranty claims. Equitable estoppel based on alleged active concealment was also rejected due to the absence of a fiduciary relationship or prevention of timely action. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth claims for breach of implied and express warranty was granted, while other tort claims remained for adjudication.

AsbestosBreach of WarrantyStatute of LimitationsUCCToxic Tort Revival ActEquitable EstoppelImplied WarrantyExpress WarrantyFuture Performance ExceptionProducts Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

JCW Electronics, Inc. v. Garza

This appeal concerns a personal injury lawsuit filed against JCW Electronics, Inc. after an inmate's suicide in a Port Isabel City Jail cell using a JCW-installed telephone. Initially, the trial court rendered judgment based on breach of contract and fraud, overriding a jury verdict that also included findings of negligence and breach of implied warranty. The appellate court reversed the breach of contract and fraud judgments, citing pleading deficiencies and the Texas Proportionate Responsibility Statute, which barred fraud recovery due to the deceased's comparative responsibility. However, the court affirmed the judgment based on breach of implied warranty of fitness, finding sufficient evidence that the telephone was unsafe for unsupervised inmate use and proximately caused the death. The final decision modified the trial court's judgment by reversing attorney's fees and adjusting court costs, ultimately affirming recovery for the appellees under the breach of implied warranty claim.

Product LiabilityImplied WarrantyWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryJail SuicideTelephone Equipment SafetyAppellate ProcedureContract LawTort LawProportionate Responsibility
References
56
Case No. 01-00-00812-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2003

U.S. Tire-Tech, Inc./Custom Blending International v. Boeran, B v.

Boeran, a Dutch corporation, sued U.S. Tire-Tech, Inc. and Custom Blending International, Inc. (Tire-Tech) for breach of warranty related to a tire-liner product. A jury initially awarded Boeran damages, but the trial court only held Tire-Tech liable under the DTPA for breach of express warranty, not implied warranty. On appeal, Tire-Tech argued lack of privity and Boeran's failure to provide timely notice of breach. The appellate court held that privity of contract is not required for express warranty claims but agreed that Boeran failed to provide timely notice to Tire-Tech, a condition precedent for both express and implied warranty claims. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment, rendering a "take nothing" judgment against Boeran.

Breach of Express WarrantyBreach of Implied WarrantyPrivity of ContractNotice RequirementDeceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)Economic LossRemote ManufacturerCondition PrecedentJury Findings
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Rehab Plus Inc.

Keith Henry sued Rehab Plus, Inc., for injuries sustained while wearing a back support belt manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment for Rehab Plus on the breach of express warranty and unfair and deceptive trade practices claims, finding a lack of evidence for an express warranty and no misleading conduct. However, the court denied summary judgment on the negligence, strict products liability, and breach of implied warranty claims. It determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendant's duty to warn foreseeable users about latent dangers associated with the back support belt and whether the product was fit for its ordinary purpose, thereby precluding summary dismissal of those claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantySummary JudgmentFailure to WarnProduct DefectBack Support BeltIndustrial SafetyDuty to Warn
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Orlando v. Novurania of America, Inc.

John Orlando sued Novurania of America, Inc. for breach of express warranty, implied warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent design/manufacturing concerning a boat purchased in 1996 that later developed cracks. Defendant moved to dismiss all claims. The District Court dismissed the implied warranty claims (Counts II and III) as time-barred under New York's UCC § 2-725(2), as they accrued at the time of purchase in 1996. The negligent design claim (Count V) was dismissed for merely restating contractual duties. The fraudulent misrepresentation claim (Count IV) was barred by New York's economic loss rule, as only economic damages were alleged. Demands for punitive damages and attorney's fees were also stricken. Only the breach of express warranty claim (Count I) survives.

Motion to DismissStatute of LimitationsBreach of WarrantyFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligent DesignEconomic Loss RulePunitive DamagesAttorney's FeesUniform Commercial CodeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crosbyton Seed Co. v. Mechura Farms

Mechura Farms sued three seed-related companies (Texas Seed, Crosbyton Seed Company, and James G. Martin) and two chemical companies (Ciba-Geigy and Terra) over a disappointing 1990 grain sorghum yield, alleging various claims including breach of contract and DTPA violations. The chemical companies settled, and the trial court granted instructed verdicts on some claims, but the jury found defects in the seed and misrepresentations regarding germination and chemical treatment, awarding $100,000 in damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment against claims of negligence, strict liability, and certain express warranties. However, it reversed and rendered judgment against claims for breach of contract and implied warranty of fitness, and reversed and remanded for new trials on specific express warranty claims, implied warranty of merchantability, and DTPA misrepresentation claims regarding seed quality and treatment. The court also reversed and remanded Martin's counterclaim for seed payment.

Grain SorghumSeed DefectBreach of ContractImplied Warranty of MerchantabilityExpress WarrantyDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Agricultural LawCrop YieldChemical DamageGermination Rate
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2006

Recursion Software, Inc. v. Interactive Intelligence, Inc.

Recursion Software, Inc. sued Interactive Intelligence, Inc. for copyright violations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit, alleging improper use of its Voyager software. Interactive counterclaimed, asserting fraudulent inducement and breach of implied warranties. The court dismissed Recursion's quasi-contractual claims due to copyright preemption. It also dismissed Interactive's counterclaims for fraudulent inducement and breach of implied warranties, finding them insufficiently supported or disclaimed. However, significant factual disputes regarding licensing terms and knowledge of infringement prevented full summary judgment for either party on the core contract and copyright claims.

Software LicensingCopyright InfringementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentCopyright PreemptionQuasi-Contract ClaimsUnjust EnrichmentQuantum MeruitImplied WarrantiesFraudulent Inducement
References
95
Case No. NO. 2-02-418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Gina Lively and Robert Lively v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. D/B/A Huguley Memorial Medical Center

This is a premises liability case arising from an alleged carjacking, abduction, and sexual assault of Gina Lively on the Hospital's premises. Gina and Robert Lively sued Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. d/b/a Huguley Memorial Medical Center, alleging negligence and breach of implied warranty. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the Hospital. The Appellants appealed the directed verdict on premises liability, and the denial of their motion to reopen, for mistrial, and for a new trial and sanctions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no evidence of cause-in-fact for negligence and no recognized cause of action for breach of implied warranty.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceDirected VerdictForeseeabilityCause-in-FactImplied WarrantyAbductionSexual AssaultEmployee SafetyInadequate Security
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 531 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