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
Nov 09, 2005

Plaza Restoration, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The plaintiff insured brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment, alleging that the defendant insurer breached its covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This alleged breach related to a personal injury action previously commenced against the plaintiff by a construction worker. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which had denied its motion to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment, arguing the action was premature. The appellate court rejected the defendant's contention, affirming that a declaratory judgment action against an insurer is permissible even before a judgment in the underlying action. The order of the Supreme Court was affirmed, with costs.

Declaratory JudgmentBreach of CovenantGood Faith and Fair DealingInsurance LawPersonal InjuryConstruction Site InjuryRipeness DoctrineMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Randolph v. Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee

Edward E. Randolph was discharged from his employment with Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee after 24 years of service at the age of 60. He filed suit alleging age discrimination, retaliatory discharge, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in his employment contract. The trial court dismissed the retaliatory discharge claim but denied the motion to dismiss the implied covenant claim. On interlocutory appeal, the court reviewed Tennessee's employment-at-will doctrine and its exceptions, noting the Supreme Court's reluctance to expand them beyond specific legislative or constitutional precedents. The appellate court distinguished Randolph's argument of custom and practice from a written contractual provision, concluding that it did not establish a basis for an implied covenant. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, dismissing the cause of action based on an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Employee dischargeAge discriminationRetaliatory dischargeImplied covenant of good faith and fair dealingEmployment at will doctrineTennessee employment lawAppellate procedureMotion to dismissStare decisisStatutory interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McClendon v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.

Appellant Perry McClendon sued his former employer, Ingersoll-Rand Co., for wrongful discharge, alleging his employment contract was not terminable at will, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He claimed he was deprived of retirement benefits and commissions due to the termination. The trial court rendered summary judgment against McClendon, which the appellate court affirmed. The court found that the written compensation agreement did not alter the 'at-will' employment doctrine and rejected the creation of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment contracts. Furthermore, the court determined that the discharge was not extreme or outrageous, thus overruling all points of error.

Wrongful DischargeAt-Will Employment DoctrineSummary JudgmentEmployment ContractImplied Covenant of Good FaithIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSales CommissionsTermination BenefitsTexas Common LawStatutory Employment Protections
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shelby v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Dennis K. Shelby sued Delta Air Lines for wrongful termination, alleging breach of employment contract, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and deceit, and negligent misrepresentation, after being fired following an arrest for cocaine activities. Shelby claimed Delta's Anti-Drug Amnesty Program, which offered rehabilitation without disciplinary action for voluntary disclosures, should have applied to him. The Court granted Delta's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding that under Tennessee's at-will employment doctrine, the Anti-Drug Memo did not create a definite term of employment and thus did not limit Delta's right to terminate. The Court also determined that Tennessee law does not recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment, and that Shelby failed to show intent for fraud or applicability of negligent misrepresentation in an employment context.

Employment LawAt-Will EmploymentWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDrug Free Workplace ActAmnesty ProgramNegligent MisrepresentationFraud and DeceitImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
References
32
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06969 [211 AD3d 1194]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2022

Integrity Intl., Inc. v. HP, Inc.

Plaintiff, Integrity International, Inc., doing business as Tarrenpoint, sued defendants, HP, Inc., for breach of service agreements dating from 1994 to 2016, primarily concerning defendants' alleged failure to make timely payments and pay late fees. The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing as time-barred, and also dismissing claims for late fees, finding them not contemplated by the agreements. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal regarding late fees and the timeliness of breach of contract claims. However, the Appellate Division found triable issues of fact concerning whether defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by diverting clients and workers. The court also held that limitation of liability clauses in the agreements were enforceable, precluding consequential damages but allowing for the recovery of general damages.

Contract DisputeTimely PaymentLate FeesSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsImplied CovenantGood Faith and Fair DealingLimitation of LiabilityConsequential DamagesGeneral Damages
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Benson Properties, Inc.

This case concerns a plaintiff's lawsuit against her employer, alleging four state law causes of action: breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of a verbal hiring promise, breach of promissory estoppel, and a combined claim of breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing against these claims. The court, presided over by District Judge Prado, analyzed Texas law, finding no legal basis for an implied covenant of good faith in employment contracts or for verbal hiring promises under the statute of frauds. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite promise for her promissory estoppel claims. Consequently, the motion for partial summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Employment LawTexasContract LawAt-Will EmploymentSummary JudgmentPromissory EstoppelGood FaithFair DealingWrongful DischargeStatute of Frauds
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearce v. Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc.

Plaintiff Anna Pearce initiated an action against Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc. and several other defendants, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, promissory estoppel, invasion of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law Section 51, unjust enrichment, and employment discrimination under New York City and State Human Rights Laws. The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss the entire action for failure to state a claim. District Judge Kimba M. Wood ruled on the motion, granting it partially and denying it in part. The court sustained the claims related to breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and invasion of privacy, allowing them to proceed. Conversely, the claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and employment discrimination were dismissed.

Breach of ContractPromissory EstoppelInvasion of PrivacyMotion to DismissNew York Civil Rights LawOral AgreementsStatute of FraudsImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingEmployment DiscriminationHuman Rights Law
References
45
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

Palmer v. Miller Brewing Co.

Truman Palmer, an employee of Miller Brewing Company, was discharged under a "Final Notice Procedure" due to a high absence rate. Palmer sued Miller, alleging retaliatory discharge, claiming his absences were related to a job-related back injury and subsequent worker's compensation claim. He also claimed breach of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Miller on the good faith claim and a take-nothing judgment on the retaliatory discharge, concluding Palmer was terminated solely for excessive absences, unrelated to his worker's compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed both rulings, holding that an absence control policy that does not excuse compensation-related absences does not inherently violate the retaliatory discharge statute (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c) and that employers do not have an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment relationships.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationAbsence Control PolicyAt-Will EmploymentGood Faith and Fair DealingSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionEmployment TerminationEvidentiary RulingsCausal Connection
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

SI Communications, Inc. v. Nielsen Media Research

Plaintiff SI Communications Inc. sued Defendant Nielsen Media Research alleging breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in their contract for television ratings estimates. SI claimed Nielsen's African-American demographic ratings had unacceptably high sampling errors, leading to substantial lost advertising revenue. Nielsen sought summary judgment, asserting that Illinois law, which governed the contract, did not support an independent cause of action for breach of implied good faith, and that a clear limitation of liability clause in the agreement precluded SI's claims. The court found in favor of Nielsen, ruling that the contract explicitly addressed sampling errors and that the exculpatory clause was enforceable and not unconscionable. Consequently, Defendant's motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff's claim was granted, and its counterclaims for unpaid services were also granted.

Breach of ContractImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationUnconscionabilitySampling ErrorTelevision RatingsAdvertising RevenueIllinois LawLimitation of Liability
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 3,714 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