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. 03-15-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2015

California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.

The appellants, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA), and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), collectively "Guaranty Associations," are appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee, Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ("Hill Bros."). The suit was filed on March 31, 2009, alleging Hill Bros. failed to reimburse the Guaranty Associations for payments of workers' compensation benefits and claim handling expenses within the deductible limits of a policy issued by the insolvent Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Hill Bros. based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the cause of action accrued on April 1, 2002. The Guaranty Associations argue that the accrual date is incorrect, as their statutory obligations had not been triggered, payments had not been made, and demand for reimbursement had not occurred by that date. They also contend that their compliance with Pennsylvania law (the "Pennsylvania Act") in seeking reimbursement through Legion in Liquidation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for any delay, making reasonableness a fact question. Furthermore, they assert the policy was a continuing contract, and the statute of limitations should not have accrued until full performance on April 28, 2009. Alternatively, they argue that claims for deductible payments made within four years of filing suit (March 31, 2005) are not barred.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty AssociationStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeductible ReimbursementInsolvencyInsurance PolicyContinuing ContractPennsylvania ActTravis County
References
21
Case No. 03-10-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

the Texas Department of Transportation, and Amadeo Saenz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Director of Texas Department of Transportation v. Sunset Transportation, Inc. MEL Transport, Inc. D/B/A Magnum Transportation And Sunset Prosper, Inc.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and its executive director appealed a district court order denying their plea to the jurisdiction regarding claims by Sunset Transportation, Inc., MEL Transport, Inc. d/b/a Magnum Transportation, Inc., and Sunset Prosper, Inc. Appellants contended that the claims, brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), were barred by sovereign immunity. The court found Appellees' APA claims lacked sufficient factual pleading but allowed an opportunity to amend. However, the district court's denial of the plea concerning UDJA claims was affirmed, as some allegations invoked the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying the plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative LawMotor Carrier RegulationFederal PreemptionState Agency AuthorityTransportation LawJurisdictionStatutory ConstructionRegulatory Challenge
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n v. Hill Bros. Transportation, Inc.

This appellate court opinion addresses a dispute between several state insurance guaranty associations (CIGA, OPCIGA, TPCIGA) and Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc., concerning the reimbursement of workers' compensation deductibles. Hill Brothers' insurer, Legion Insurance Company, became insolvent, leading the Guaranty Associations to pay claims on Legion's behalf. The associations then sought reimbursement from Hill Brothers for deductibles. The trial court granted summary judgment for Hill Brothers, citing the statute of limitations. On appeal, the court ruled that the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) lacked standing and dismissed its claims. However, the court found that the Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA) and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) did have standing. Furthermore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision regarding limitations, holding that the cause of action for reimbursement accrued upon demand and refusal, not earlier. The case was remanded for further proceedings for OPCIGA and TPCIGA's claims.

Insurance Guaranty FundsInsurer InsolvencyWorkers' Compensation DeductiblesContract BreachLegal StandingStatute of Limitations DefenseAppellate ReversalJudicial RemandInsurance ReimbursementPolicy Obligations
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Aleynikov

Sergey Aleynikov, a former Goldman Sachs & Co. employee, was indicted on three counts related to misappropriating computer source code for Goldman's high-frequency trading system. He moved to dismiss all counts, arguing the stolen source code did not meet statutory definitions of 'product' for trade secret theft (Count One) or 'goods' for interstate transportation of stolen property (Count Two), and that his computer access was authorized (Count Three). The court denied dismissal for Count One, holding Goldman's trading system was a 'product' produced for interstate commerce under the Economic Espionage Act, and for Count Two, finding the source code constituted 'goods' under the National Stolen Property Act due to its commercial value. However, the court granted dismissal for Count Three, ruling that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not criminalize an authorized employee's misuse or misappropriation of information to which they had permission to access, even if done with an improper purpose or in violation of company policy. Thus, the motion to dismiss was granted in part (Count Three) and denied in part (Counts One and Two).

Economic Espionage ActTheft of Trade SecretsComputer Fraud and Abuse ActNational Stolen Property ActHigh-frequency tradingSource code misappropriationComputer crimeIntellectual property theftStatutory interpretationMotion to dismiss
References
81
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Decker v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including the United Transportation Union and Local 377, initiated an action in state court against CSX Transport, Inc. (CSXT), alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions related to CSXT's planned sale of a rail line. CSXT moved for dismissal, contending that the plaintiffs' notice was barred by a national agreement moratorium, Local 377 lacked standing, the carrier held a unilateral right to sell lines, and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) preempted RLA Section 6. Conversely, plaintiffs asserted that the National Mediation Board had docketed their dispute as major, the sale was a tactic to circumvent RLA provisions, and the moratorium did not apply to them due to local bargaining representation. The court, drawing parallels with Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. Staten Island Railroad Corp., determined that the ICC's authorization of the sale brought the matter under its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court found itself unable to provide a remedy without interfering with the ICC's order and granted CSXT's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Railway Labor ActStatus Quo ProvisionsMotion to DismissRail Line SaleInterstate Commerce CommissionPreemptionCollective BargainingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefJurisdiction
References
10
Case No. 05-18-00541-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2019

AAA Cooper Transportation and XTRA Lease, LLC v. Olynthus M. Davis and Property & Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford

Olynthus M. Davis, a warehouseman, was injured while loading a trailer leased by AAA Cooper Transportation from XTRA Lease, LLC when an E-track rail detached and impaled his leg. Davis sued the appellants for providing an unsafe trailer and negligence in its inspection, repair, and maintenance. A jury found AAA Cooper 40% negligent, XTRA Lease 50% negligent, and Davis 10% negligent, awarding Davis damages. Appellants appealed, raising issues regarding the trial court's submission of a general negligence question instead of premises liability, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's findings on expert testimony and future medical expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the trailer was not a premises, and upheld the admissibility and sufficiency of the expert testimonies.

NegligencePremises LiabilityExpert TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceFuture Medical ExpensesCausationDamagesWorkplace InjuryForklift AccidentE-track System
References
25
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabourel v. Bouchard Transportation Co.

Plaintiff Thomas Gabourel, chief engineer on the tugboat Morton S. Bouchard, Jr., filed a Jones Act action against Bouchard Transportation Co. and Caddell Dry Dock and Repair Co. after being injured in a tugboat engine explosion on July 2, 1992. The explosion caused extensive damage to the tugboat and was attributed to a rag left in the lubricating oil system. Initially, Bouchard cross-claimed against Caddell, but later sought to amend its answer to include a counterclaim against Gabourel for property damage to the tugboat, alleging his potential negligence. The court, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13(f) and 15(a), granted Bouchard's motion, finding the counterclaim meritorious, not unduly prejudicial to the plaintiff, and the delay in filing not warranting denial. The decision clarified that a shipowner can assert a negligence cause of action against an employee for property damage.

Jones ActMaritime LawNegligenceCounterclaimFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployer LiabilityEmployee NegligenceProperty DamageTugboat ExplosionAmendment of Pleadings
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,715 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