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. 05-17-01421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2018

in Re: Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC

This legal document is Magellan Crude Oil Pipeline Company, L.P.'s (Real Party in Interest) response to an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC (Relator). The core dispute revolves around Enterprise's alleged breach of a Crude Oil Distribution Agreement, specifically its 10-year commitment to exclusively use Magellan's Houston-area crude oil distribution facilities. Enterprise sought to prevent discovery, claiming requests were overbroad, burdensome, and sought trade secrets or inadmissible parol evidence. Magellan argues the mandamus should be denied, asserting its discovery requests are relevant to contract breach, fraud, and promissory estoppel claims, and that Enterprise's objections lack merit given Magellan's contractual audit rights. The document concludes by advocating for the denial of Enterprise's mandamus petition.

Contract DisputeMandamusDiscovery OrderTrade SecretsParol EvidenceSummary JudgmentRequirements ContractPipeline TransportationCrude OilGood Faith
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. (Integrated) purchased a commercial general liability policy from Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale). Integrated received delayed and initially incorrect notifications about a worker's injury. After clarifying details, Integrated notified Scottsdale, which denied coverage citing late notice. Integrated then filed a declaratory judgment action to compel Scottsdale to defend and indemnify it. Scottsdale's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the order denying dismissal was affirmed, as Integrated adequately pleaded reasonable delay and Scottsdale's documentary evidence was insufficient to refute the claim.

Commercial General LiabilityInsurance PolicyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLate NoticeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc. v. Lorac Service Corp.

This case before the Texas Supreme Court concerns a deceptive trade practices claim brought by Lorac Service Corporation against Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc., a Hertz franchisee. Lorac alleged that Sherman Simon Enterprises misrepresented that its automobile rental agreement provided liability insurance coverage and subsequently refused to honor this coverage after an accident involving a Lorac employee. While the trial court and court of appeals found in favor of Lorac, awarding treble damages and attorney's fees, Sherman Simon Enterprises appealed, challenging Lorac's consumer status and the sufficiency of evidence for misrepresentation. The Supreme Court upheld Lorac's qualification as a consumer under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. However, the court ultimately concluded there was no evidence of misrepresentation, as Sherman Simon Enterprises did provide the promised liability coverage through its insurer, even though the insurer initially refused to defend Lorac. Consequently, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of Sherman Simon Enterprises.

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Consumer StatusAutomobile Rental AgreementLiability Insurance CoverageMisrepresentationAgencyCorporation as ConsumerInsurance Contract BreachAppellate ReviewTexas Supreme Court
References
10
Case No. 04-98-00477-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1999

Bryan Barnhill v. Integrated Health Services, Inc.

Bryan Barnhill appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Integrated Health Services, Inc. Barnhill suffered a back injury at work and subsequently sued his employer, initially naming Normandy Terrace, Inc. and later Riverside Healthcare, Inc. and Preferred Care, Inc., before finally identifying Integrated Health Services, Inc. as his employer. Integrated moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, which Barnhill countered with a fraudulent concealment defense. The appellate court found that Barnhill presented genuine issues of material fact regarding fraudulent concealment, given that Integrated was aware of the lawsuit and had business connections with other named defendants. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary Judgment AppealWorkers' Compensation DisputeStatute of LimitationsFraudulent Concealment DefenseEmployer IdentificationDiscovery IssuesAppellate ProcedureEquitable EstoppelPleading AmendmentsNon-subscriber Employer
References
8
Case No. 2018-08-1394
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2019

Johnson, Frederick v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car

Frederick Johnson, a service technician, sustained injuries when a co-worker accidentally struck him with a van at Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Enterprise denied his claim, asserting his injuries resulted from horseplay and willful misconduct, which the employer prohibited. However, the Court found insufficient evidence to support the horseplay defense, concluding instead that the incident stemmed from a miscommunication and the co-worker's improper driving. The Court ruled that Mr. Johnson is likely to prevail on the merits, granting him medical and temporary total disability benefits. Enterprise was ordered to cover incurred medical expenses, provide a panel of physicians, and pay $885.95 in temporary total disability.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingHorseplay DefenseWillful MisconductMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCredibility AssessmentMiscommunicationEmployee InjuryEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. 08-04-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

Francisco Garcia, Individually and as Next Friend of Francisco Garcia, Jr., and Kevin Garcia, Minor Children v. J. J. S. Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A/ PDQ Drive-In Grocery

Francisco Garcia, individually and as next friend for his minor children, Francisco Garcia, Jr. and Kevin Garcia (the Garcias), appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc. (J.J.S. Enterprises). The case originated from the death of Rosario Michelle Garcia, who died during a robbery at her employer, PDQ Drive-In Grocery. Mrs. Garcia, a cashier, pursued a shoplifter against company policy, fell from a moving vehicle, and was fatally injured. The Garcias filed a wrongful death suit alleging negligence, but J.J.S. Enterprises moved for summary judgment citing a pre-injury waiver. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling the pre-injury waiver valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' lawsuit.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentPre-Injury WaiverOccupational Accident PlanNon-Subscriber EmployerTexas LawPublic PolicyFair NoticeActual Knowledge
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc.

The Garcias, family of Rosario Michelle Garcia, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc., their employer, following Mrs. Garcia's death during a robbery at her workplace. Mrs. Garcia died after pursuing a shoplifter, contrary to company policy, and was run over by a fleeing vehicle. The Garcias brought a wrongful death suit, alleging employer negligence, while J.J.S. Enterprises asserted unforeseeability, lack of proximate cause, and a pre-injury waiver. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that the pre-injury waiver Mrs. Garcia signed was valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' negligence claims. This decision upheld that such waivers, made before June 17, 2001, are not against public policy under Texas law if the employee had actual knowledge of the waiver's terms.

Wrongful DeathNegligence ClaimSummary JudgmentPre-injury WaiverEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanOccupational AccidentNon-subscriber EmployerPublic PolicyExpress Negligence DoctrineFair Notice Requirements
References
24
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08397 [177 AD3d 864]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2019

Landaverde v. Lin-Ann Enters., Inc.

Plaintiff Olga D. Landaverde suffered injuries after slipping on ice on property owned by defendant Lin-Ann Enterprises, Inc. Having received Workers' Compensation benefits, she initiated a personal injury action against the defendant. Lin-Ann Enterprises, Inc. sought summary judgment, asserting it was an alter ego of Landaverde's employer, Logan Bus Co., Inc., and thus immune under Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department. The appellate court found the defendant failed to demonstrate prima facie evidence of an alter ego relationship, specifically lacking proof that the entities operated as a single integrated unit or that one controlled the other's daily operations.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal Injury DamagesCorporate VeilIntegrated EntityDay-to-day Operations Control
References
6
Case No. 14-12-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2013

Zuleima Olivares. Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., and Pedro Olivares, Individually v. Brown & Gay Engineering and Mike Stone Enterprises, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by Zuleima Olivares and Pedro Olivares (Appellants) against the granting of pleas to the jurisdiction for Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. and Mike Stone Enterprises, Inc. (Appellees). The Appellants had sued the Appellees for negligence and premises defects following a fatal accident on the Westpark Tollway. Appellees claimed governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, arguing they functioned as governmental employees. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals examined whether the Appellees met the statutory definition of governmental employees or were independent contractors. The court ultimately concluded that both Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. and Mike Stone Enterprises, Inc. were independent contractors, thus not entitled to governmental immunity. Therefore, the trial court's decision was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Governmental immunityTexas Tort Claims ActIndependent contractorGovernmental employeePlea to the jurisdictionNegligencePremises defectRight to controlTort liabilityAppellate review
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 1,106 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