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. 03-03-00704-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2005

Texas Mutual Insurance Company// Eckerd Corporation H.E. Butt Grocery Company Third-Party Solutions, Inc. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Apollo Enterprises, Inc. And Walgreen Company v. Eckerd Corporation H.E. Butt Grocery Company Third-Party Solutions, Inc. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Apollo Enterprises, Inc. And Walgreen Company//Cross-Appellee,Texas Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves cross-appeals concerning whether an insurance company must first exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act before filing a lawsuit for alleged overcharges by health care providers. Appellant Texas Mutual Insurance Company sued several pharmacies and billing companies for negligent misrepresentation and money had and received, claiming they over-billed for prescription drugs. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted partial summary judgment against Texas Mutual. The Court of Appeals, relying on prior precedent, determined that the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission holds exclusive jurisdiction over medical fee disputes within the Act's pervasive regulatory scheme. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as Texas Mutual had not exhausted its administrative remedies.

Workers' Compensation ActAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionMedical Fee DisputesPharmaceutical Fee GuidelineOverbillingNegligent MisrepresentationMoney Had and ReceivedStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 05-16-00875-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2018

Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company, America First Insurance Company, the Netherlands Insurance Company, and America First Lloyds Insurance Company A.K.A. America First Insurance Company v. GLS Masonry, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by several insurance companies (Appellants) against GLS Masonry, Inc. (Appellee) after a take-nothing judgment in their suit to collect unpaid insurance premiums. The dispute centered on whether GLS's masonry workers were independent contractors or employees for premium calculation purposes, particularly for workers' compensation and general liability policies. The Appellants argued that GLS owed additional premiums due to audits reclassifying workers as employees and based on a lack of liability insurance for subcontractors. The trial court sided with GLS, finding that the insurance companies failed to establish the applicability of certain labor code provisions and did not sufficiently prove that GLS owed additional premiums, especially considering evidence that the workers were independent contractors and payments were made on policies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Insurance DisputeUnpaid PremiumsCommercial General LiabilityPremium AuditIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee ClassificationBreach of ContractTexas Appellate LawFactual Sufficiency ReviewSworn Account Claim
References
12
Case No. 14-09-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Weingarten Realty Management Company and Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal from a trial court's summary judgment in an insurance-coverage dispute. Appellants Weingarten Realty Management Company and Scottsdale Insurance Company sought to compel appellee Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company to defend Weingarten Management in an underlying lawsuit where it was mistakenly identified as a lessor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, allowing the consideration of extrinsic evidence as a narrow exception to the eight-corners rule. This exception applies when an insurer proves, using extrinsic evidence, that the party seeking defense is a stranger to the policy and could not be entitled to coverage under any circumstances, without touching on the merits of the underlying claim. The court concluded that Weingarten Management was not an actual lessor and therefore not an insured under Liberty Mutual's policy.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendEight-Corners Rule ExceptionExtrinsic EvidenceSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Policy InterpretationLessor StatusContractual DisputesTexas Civil Procedure
References
30
Case No. 01–04–01277–CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Zapata County and Zapata Independent School District v. Conocophillips Company on Its Own Behalf and as Successor–by–merger to Conoco Inc. (f/K/A Continental Oil Company, Inc.) Brandywine Industrial Gas, Inc. Phillips Petroleum Company El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

This opinion consolidates 19 separate suits filed by various Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud through schemes to undervalue oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial courts granted the Oil Companies' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the cases because the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Tax Code provides the exclusive means for addressing such claims, establishing a pervasive regulatory scheme through the Appraisal Review Board, and offering remedies like challenging valuations or back-appraising omitted property. The court held that the Taxing Units cannot bypass the comprehensive statutory scheme by recharacterizing tax disputes as common-law fraud cases.

Ad Valorem TaxProperty ValuationTax FraudAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeAppraisal Review BoardOil and Gas TaxationMineral InterestsExhaustion of Remedies
References
14
Case No. 01-00-00586-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company

This case involves indemnity and insurance claims arising from oilfield litigation. Appellants, Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company, appealed a summary judgment granted to appellees, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company. The trial court had ruled that mutual indemnity provisions in an oil and gas drilling contract were void under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment, holding that the contract was enforceable up to the extent of mutual coverage and dollar limits, and that its indemnity provisions were conspicuous.

Oilfield LitigationIndemnityInsurance ClaimsTexas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationMutual Indemnity ObligationConspicuousnessAppellate ReviewWell Blowout
References
18
Case No. 13-08-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2010

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa and Industrial Risk Insurers v. John Zink Company Fisher Controls Company, Inc. Fisher Controls International, Inc. Fisher Controls Installation and Service Company And Valtek, Inc.

This litigation, stemming from refinery explosions and fires in the 1980s, involved an appeal by National Union Fire Insurance Company and Industrial Risk Insurers (the Insurers) against various contractors (the Contractors). The Insurers, as subrogees of Valero Energy Corporation, sought damages for product liability, negligence, breach of contract, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations. The core legal dispute centered on whether the Contractors qualified as 'subcontractors' under a master contract between Valero and M.W. Kellogg Construction Company, which contained extensive waiver and release provisions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's final summary judgment, concluding that the Contractors were indeed subcontractors, the express negligence doctrine did not apply to the post-act release, and Valero had validly waived its DTPA claims, thereby binding its subrogees.

Contractual WaiversSubrogation RightsSummary Judgment AppealExpress Negligence RuleDeceptive Trade Practices ActParol Evidence Rule ApplicationJudicial AdmissionsConstruction ContractsInsurance LitigationThird-Party Beneficiary
References
31
Case No. 3-94-122-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1995

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. State Board of Insurance, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Houston General Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, United States Fire Insurance Company

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (Facility) appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an order by the State Board of Insurance. The Board had ordered the Facility to indemnify several servicing companies for legal expenses incurred in litigation brought by Standard Financial Indemnity Company (SFIC). The Facility argued that Article 5.76-2, section 2.05(i) of the Texas Insurance Code, which states the Facility 'may not indemnify the servicing companies,' terminated the servicing companies' right to indemnification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the servicing companies had a vested contractual right to indemnification which arose when they entered into servicing company agreements, and that section 2.05(i) could not be applied retroactively to impair these vested rights. The court found that the law existing at the time the contracts were made, which included the Facility's bylaws allowing for indemnification, was incorporated into the agreements.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawContractual RightsVested RightsRetroactive Application of LawIndemnificationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance Code
References
32
Case No. 03-00-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

All American Life Insurance Company American General Life Insurance Company American National Insurance Company American National Life Insurance Company of Texas IDS Life Insurance Company And USLIFE Life Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas

Several insurance companies appealed a district court judgment affirming the Comptroller's assessment of premium and maintenance taxes on 'internal rollover' transactions, where policyholders transfer accumulation values within the same company for new policies. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reviewed the construction of Texas Insurance Code articles 4.11 and 4.17 de novo. The court determined that 'internal rollovers' do not involve funds being 'received' or 'collected' by the insurance companies, as the funds remain within the company. Therefore, these transactions are not subject to the premium and maintenance taxes. The judgment of the district court was reversed in part, and the case was remanded for a determination of the refund amounts owed to the companies.

Insurance LawTax LawPremium TaxInternal RolloversStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of AppealsInsurance CompaniesComptrollerGross PremiumsTax Refund
References
9
Case No. 06-00-00053-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2002

Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. v. Mustang Pipeline Company, Inc.

This appeal involves a breach of contract dispute between Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. (Appellant) and Mustang Pipeline Company, Inc. (Appellee) concerning a pipeline construction project. Driver was contracted to build a pipeline but faced delays, leading Mustang to terminate the contract and hire another company. At trial, the jury found Driver breached the contract but also that Mustang was not justified in its termination. The trial court subsequently granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on Mustang's damage award, citing a lack of evidence for reasonable and necessary costs. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court upheld the JNOV on Mustang's damages and sustained the jury's finding that Mustang's termination was unjustified, while Driver's appeal regarding a statutory mineral lien was not preserved for review.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawAppellate ReviewJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictDamagesReasonable and Necessary CostsMaterial BreachTermination of ContractFactual SufficiencyLegal Sufficiency
References
50
Case No. M2007-01344-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2008

Brim Holding Company, Inc. v. Province Healthcare Company

The issue on appeal in this contract dispute was whether the defendant breached its indemnification obligations under a stock purchase agreement. The plaintiff, Brim Holding Company, Inc., sought reimbursement for a specific claim related to the CHAMA litigation, which the defendant, Province Healthcare Company, contended was already compensated via a working capital adjustment. The trial court sided with the plaintiff, granting summary judgment, finding the indemnity provisions unequivocal. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, stating that the contract's plain language required the defendant to indemnify the plaintiff for all related losses, including attorney fees and costs. The appellate court also upheld the award of prejudgment interest to the plaintiff.

Contract DisputeStock Purchase AgreementIndemnificationBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPrejudgment InterestDelaware Contract LawTennessee Appellate LawContract InterpretationWorking Capital Adjustment
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 14,873 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