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

St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Confer

Patricia Confer, widow of Dr. Ronald Confer, sought workers' compensation death benefits after Dr. Confer died in a car accident. She alleged he was in the course and scope of his employment, intending to purchase computer supplies for his employer, Texas Educational Foundation, before heading home. After an initial favorable ruling was reversed by an appeals panel, Mrs. Confer successfully sued in district court, where a jury found in her favor. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, the appellant, challenged the verdict, citing insufficient evidence, erroneous exclusion of testimony, and an improper attorney's fees award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "dual purpose rule" to uphold the jury's finding that Dr. Confer was on a business errand at the time of the accident and finding no reversible errors in the trial court's other rulings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentDual Purpose RuleAutomobile AccidentEvidentiary RulingAttorney's FeesTexas Labor CodeSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 05-15-00944-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2016

Corinth Investor Holdings, LLC v. Mark Bennett

Corinth Investor Holdings, LLC, a workers' compensation non-subscriber, hired Mark Bennett, who was covered by an Employee Injury Benefit Plan with an arbitration clause. After an injury and receiving benefits, Bennett tried to revoke the agreement. Corinth's motion to compel arbitration was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas reversed this decision, ruling that Bennett failed to present admissible controverting evidence to dispute the valid arbitration agreement, and therefore was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his defenses.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActMotion to CompelWaiverContract DisputeInterlocutory AppealWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEvidentiary HearingAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isaac v. Life Investors Insurance Co. of America

The plaintiffs, a minor child and her parents, filed a four-count complaint against Life Investors Insurance Company of America and Nicholas W. Humble, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a health insurance plan. They claimed the defendants induced them to terminate prior insurance and enroll in a plan that subsequently denied coverage for the daughter's scoliosis. The defendants sought dismissal, citing a lack of private right of action under an Alabama "twisting" statute and federal preemption under ERISA. The court granted dismissal for claims based on the "twisting" statute but denied it for the general fraud claims. It concluded that these fraud claims were not preempted by ERISA, reasoning that no federal remedy was available for alleged misconduct occurring before the plaintiffs became plan participants, following Sixth Circuit precedent.

ERISA preemptionfraudulent misrepresentationhealth insurancestate law claimsfederal question jurisdictiondiversity of citizenshippre-enrollment misconductlack of ERISA remedyAlabama state lawtwisting statute
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medafrica Line, S.P.A. v. American West African Freight Conference

On March 20, 1984, Medafrica Line, S.P.A. (Medafrica) obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the American West African Freight Conference (AWAFC) from collecting a $9,118,301 penalty. As a condition, Medafrica posted a $150,000 bond issued by the Insurance Company of North America (INA). The injunction was contingent on the outcome of Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) proceedings and any subsequent arbitration. On February 18, 1986, the FMC dismissed Medafrica's administrative complaint with prejudice, and the time for appeal or arbitration expired. AWAFC subsequently moved to dissolve the injunction, dismiss the action, and seek judgment for $150,000 against INA on the bond, arguing they were wrongfully enjoined. The court found that AWAFC was indeed wrongfully enjoined and suffered damages because Medafrica became insolvent during the injunction's pendency, preventing AWAFC from collecting the penalty. Therefore, the court granted AWAFC's motions, dissolving the preliminary injunction, dismissing the action, and holding INA liable to AWAFC for $150,000 on the injunction bond.

Preliminary InjunctionInjunction BondWrongful InjunctionDamagesBankruptcySuretyFederal Maritime CommissionFed.R.Civ.P. 65(c)Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.1Collection
References
4
Case No. 91-CV-324; 92-CV-569
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Boening Bros.

The New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund sought to audit the payroll records of contributing employers Boening Brothers, Inc. and Charles Snyder Beverages, Inc. The employers refused, arguing they were not explicitly bound by audit provisions. The Court ruled that by contributing to the multiemployer plan under collective bargaining agreements, the employers implicitly assented to the Fund's governing documents, which include the right to audit. Citing precedents, the Court found the audit necessary to ensure proper contributions and plan integrity, upholding the Fund's right to audit all payroll records, including non-bargaining unit employees. However, the Court denied the Fund's request for attorney's fees, noting the lack of bad faith by the defendants and the unsettled nature of the legal issue at the time.

ERISAPension PlanMultiemployer PlanPayroll AuditCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsPlan AdministrationFiduciary Duty
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1995

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Fratto Curbing Co.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund seeking a default judgment against Fratto Curbing Co., Inc. for delinquent pension fund contributions. Fratto failed to respond to the complaint after being served, leading to an entry of default by the Clerk of the Court. The court granted the Teamsters' motion for default judgment, finding Fratto liable for delinquent contributions, audit fees, interest, and attorney's fees. The decision also clarified the calculation of liquidated damages under ERISA, stating that the fund is entitled to the greater of double interest or the plan's liquidated damages, but not both, thus reducing the total award. The final judgment was entered against Fratto in the amount of $5,687.23, along with post-judgment interest.

ERISAPension ContributionsDefault JudgmentDelinquent PaymentsCollective BargainingEmployee BenefitsLiquidated Damages CalculationAttorney's FeesFederal CourtContractual Obligations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.H. Cobb Co. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

F.H. Cobb Co., a subsidiary of Super Food Services Inc., filed an action seeking a declaration of non-liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) concerning withdrawal liability to the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund. The MPPAA retroactively imposed liability for employers withdrawing on or after April 29, 1980. F.H. Cobb had ceased its primary wholesale distribution business by March 8, 1980, and retained a minimal workforce for only phase-out activities until May 16, 1980, with final pension contributions in May 1980. The court analyzed whether this constituted a 'complete withdrawal' prior to the MPPAA's effective date, concluding that the phase-out work did not negate the earlier cessation of covered operations. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring F.H. Cobb's non-liability under the MPPAA's withdrawal provisions.

MPPAAwithdrawal liabilitymultiemployer pension plancessation of operationssummary judgmentretroactive legislationpension contributionsphase-out workemployer obligationsplan funding
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund v. DOREN AVE. ASSOCIATES, INC.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund pursuing withdrawal liability payments from Doren Avenue Associates, Inc., Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC. The Fund alleged these defendants were under common control with or alter egos of Howard’s Express, Inc., a company previously obligated to the Fund. The court ruled that determining the defendants' "employer status" under the MPPAA was a matter for judicial decision, not arbitration. It denied the Fund's motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence on the common control and alter ego claims against Express and S&P. Conversely, the court granted the summary judgment motion for Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC, dismissing the complaint against them and terminating related arbitration proceedings, while granting a default judgment against Doren Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pension Withdrawal LiabilityMPPAAERISACommon Control DoctrineAlter Ego LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court JurisdictionArbitration TerminationCorporate Ownership StructureEmployee Benefit Plans
References
27
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07699 [176 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Humberto Rivera was injured while riding in an elevator filled with unsecured construction materials. Defendants 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C. and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. successfully appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment, with the Appellate Division finding they established prima facie that they did not cause or have notice of the unsafe condition and only exercised general supervisory control. Conversely, defendants NTT Services, LLC and Pritchard Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied and affirmed on appeal. They failed to demonstrate they did not create a hazard or fully displace the duty to maintain safe premises, given that their employee permitted plaintiff to enter the elevator despite company rules against it. The court also noted unresolved issues regarding contractual indemnification for 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNegligenceContractual IndemnificationGeneral Supervisory ControlUnsecured MaterialsWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 90 Civ. 1005 (RWS)
Regular Panel Decision

Schick v. Ernst & Young

The Investors sued Ernst & Young for securities fraud and common law fraud related to their investments in limited partnerships dealing with thoroughbred racehorses. The Investors alleged E&Y, as auditors, made material misrepresentations and omissions in the June 1986 Balance Sheet, which was part of a private placement memorandum for an exchange offer where limited partnership interests were rolled into shares of Select. E&Y moved to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that the amended complaint failed to specify the amount of alleged overstatement of accounts receivable, did not adequately plead fraudulent omission regarding affiliated transactions due to prior disclosures, and lacked sufficient particularity for E&Y's scienter regarding "going concern" and "liquidity" qualifications, and Kinderhill's indemnitor liabilities. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed, and the state law claims were dismissed for lack of pendent jurisdiction, with leave granted to replead.

Securities FraudCommon Law FraudRule 9(b) Pleading StandardsPlead with ParticularityScienterAuditing MisrepresentationsFinancial StatementsLimited PartnershipsPonzi SchemeDismissal with Leave to Replead
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,156 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