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

Reliance Insurance Co. v. Kronzer, Abraham & Watkins

The Reliance Insurance Company appealed a trial court's decision that awarded 25% of its subrogation recovery to the claimant's attorneys, Kronzer, Abraham & Watkins, as fees. Reliance had intervened in a personal injury lawsuit to recoup worker's compensation benefits paid to Chester Gilson. The core of the dispute was the applicability of a 1973 amendment to Article 8307, Section 6a, Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated, which permitted such attorney's fees. Reliance contended that its pre-existing right to full subrogation, which accrued with payments made to Gilson before the amendment's effective date of September 1, 1973, was protected by Article 8309, Section 3b, preventing retroactive application of the amendment. The appellate court agreed, concluding that Reliance's inchoate or contingent right to full recovery, including its own enforcement costs, had accrued prior to the amendment. Consequently, the trial court was unauthorized to deduct attorney's fees from Reliance's subrogation amount. The judgment was reformed to remove the attorney's fee provision and affirmed as modified.

Workers CompensationSubrogationAttorney's FeesRetroactivityStatutory InterpretationVested RightsTexas LawIndustrial Accident BoardInsurance CarrierSettlement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peters v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.

Reginald Peters initiated a lawsuit against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company after they ceased his long-term disability payments. This cessation occurred because Peters had previously entered into a settlement agreement with his employer, Averitt Express, Inc., which included a general release of Averitt and its insurers from future liability. Peters argued that Reliance, not being specifically named in the settlement, was still obligated to pay benefits. The court, presiding over an ERISA-governed claim, applied federal common law to assess the validity of the release. It concluded that the agreement's broad language, which encompassed Averitt's insurers and long-term disability benefits, did include Reliance. Citing adequate consideration and Peters's legal representation, the court granted Reliance's motion to dismiss, barring Peters's claim.

Disability BenefitsERISAMotion to DismissSettlement AgreementRelease of ClaimsFederal Common LawWaiver ValidityLong-Term DisabilityInsurer LiabilityFifth Circuit Law
References
29
Case No. 14-05-00061-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2006

Reliance Capital, Inc. v. G.R, Hmaidan, Inc. and Isam Hmaidan

Reliance Capital, Inc. appealed the granting of a summary judgment in favor of G.R. Hmaidan, Inc. and Isam Hmaidan. The dispute arose from Hmaidan's non-payment of three promissory notes used to finance the purchase of liquor stores. Reliance argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on res judicata, allowing Hmaidan's attorney's affidavit as the sole basis, when a Mary Carter agreement existed, and denying Reliance's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the attorney's affidavit, which violated Rule 3.08 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, as the testimony involved ultimate issues and did not fall under any exceptions. The court also upheld the denial of Reliance's motion for summary judgment due to a conclusory statement in Reliance's president's affidavit regarding ownership of the notes. Consequently, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Summary JudgmentRes JudicataAttorney AffidavitRule 3.08 ViolationEvidentiary RulingAbuse of DiscretionPromissory NotesBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewMary Carter Agreement
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik

Plaintiffs Michael Sevcik and Cathy Loth were injured in a highway accident caused by a tractor-trailer owned by Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. and driven by Sam Alvarado. In the trial, the plaintiffs introduced evidence of Reliance's $1.9 billion annual revenues, despite punitive damages not being at issue. The jury awarded the plaintiffs over $3 million, with several damage amounts exceeding the evidence presented. The Supreme Court of Texas found the admission of Reliance's wealth inadmissible and prejudiced the jury's verdict, as it likely influenced the damage awards which were not adequately supported by evidence. The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the potential for bias against large businesses.

Admissibility of evidenceWealth evidencePrejudicial effectHarmless error reviewJury verdictDamage awardsNegligence caseVicarious liabilityTrial court abuse of discretionRemand for new trial
References
30
Case No. 01-01-00812-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2003

the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association for Reliance National Indemnity Company, an Impaired Insurer v. Martell Guillot

The Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, acting for Reliance National Indemnity Company, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Martell Guillot. Reliance sought to claim statutory subrogation rights over proceeds from a 1995 lawsuit where Guillot was awarded $30,000 for a non-work-related automobile accident. Reliance argued that a portion of this award covered medical and income benefits it paid for Guillot's subsequent 1996 work-related injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the defendant in the 1995 lawsuit was not liable for Guillot's compensable injury. The court concluded that the jury's award in the 1995 lawsuit was exclusively for the 1994 accident, thereby preventing a double recovery, and denied Reliance's claim.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation RightsSummary Judgment AppealThird-Party LiabilityAutomobile AccidentCompensable InjuryDouble Recovery PreventionInsurance Guaranty AssociationAppellate ReviewTexas Labor Code
References
5
Case No. CIV.A.H-98-1484
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2000

Sandwich Chef of Texas v. Reliance Nat. Indemnity Ins. Co.

Sandwich Chef of Texas, Inc. (d/b/a Wall Street Deli), as plaintiff, filed a class action against numerous insurance carriers, including Reliance National Indemnity Insurance Company, alleging that they defrauded employers by charging excessive workers' compensation premiums between May 1988 and January 1990. The plaintiff claims that the defendants utilized the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI) as a racketeering enterprise to commit mail and wire fraud. This was allegedly done by improperly factoring 'residual market charges' (RMLs) into premiums, which were purportedly unfiled and unapproved. The defendants moved for a Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claims failed to allege indictable acts of racketeering, lacked a basis for proving injury 'by reason of' alleged misrepresentations due to a 'presumption of knowledge' of filed rates, and were precluded by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that overbilling can constitute RICO mail fraud, that claims to enforce filed rates are not barred by the 'presumption of knowledge,' and that the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not preclude RICO's application as it complemented state regulations. The court also allowed the plaintiff's 'fraud-on-the-regulator' theory and conspiracy claims to proceed.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation InsuranceMail FraudWire FraudClass ActionSummary JudgmentFiled Rate DoctrineInsurance FraudRetrospectively Rated InsuranceResidual Market Charges
References
15
Case No. NO. 02-12-00201-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2013

Mary Ellen Little, Becky Little Anthony, Tricia Rose Jackson, Eric John Little, James Shannon Little, Widow and Children of Johnny James Little, and Debra Dee Keefer, as Independent of the Estate of Johnny James Little v. Delta Steel, Inc. and Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

This case involves an appeal by the family of Johnny Little against Delta Steel, Inc. and its parent company, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., following Johnny's death in a workplace accident. Johnny, a crane operator for Delta Steel, was killed when a steel plate dislodged from an electromagnetic crane lacking a battery backup unit. Appellants sued for wrongful death and survival damages, alleging negligence and gross negligence. The trial court denied appellants' motions for summary judgment, granted appellees' motions, and overruled appellants' objections. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for Delta Steel due to quasi-estoppel, as Johnny's widow had accepted workers' compensation benefits, and affirmed the summary judgment for Reliance on the gross negligence claim. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for Reliance on the ordinary negligence claim, finding that Reliance had voluntarily undertaken a duty of safety for Delta Steel's employees.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentQuasi-EstoppelParent Company LiabilitySubsidiary LiabilityVoluntary Undertaking DoctrineWorkplace SafetyCrane Accident
References
62
Case No. 03-00-00801-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2001

Reliance National Indemnity Company v. Laura Rose Bar-Yardin and United Fashions of Texas, Ltd.

Reliance National Indemnity Company appealed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Laura Rose Bar-Yardin and United Fashions of Texas Ltd. The case stemmed from a car accident involving Corinne Meler, a T.G.I. Friday's employee, who died while acting within the scope of her employment. Because Meler had no qualified legal beneficiaries, Reliance, as the workers' compensation carrier, paid death benefits to the Subsequent Injury Fund. Reliance then sued Bar-Yardin, asserting subrogation rights to recover these benefits, arguing the Fund qualified as a 'legal beneficiary.' The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that under Texas law, a workers' compensation carrier is not entitled to subrogation for death benefits paid to the Subsequent Injury Fund, as the Fund lacks a direct cause of action against a third-party tortfeasor to which the carrier could be subrogated.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation RightsSubsequent Injury FundLegal BeneficiaryDeath BenefitsSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeCar AccidentThird-Party LiabilityInsurance Carrier
References
7
Case No. E2002-00973-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2002

William Davis v. Reliance Electric Industrial

Plaintiff William A. Davis sued Reliance Electric Industrial Company for retaliatory discharge after being fired following two work-related injuries and filing a workers' compensation claim. The parties agreed to arbitration, where the arbitrator found in favor of Davis, awarding compensatory and punitive damages, citing the company's non-credible witnesses and missing crucial documents. The Circuit Court affirmed the arbitrator's award, including the punitive damages. Reliance Electric appealed, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his powers and erred in various aspects. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment, finding the arbitrator acted within his authority and that no statutory grounds for vacating the award were demonstrated.

retaliatory dischargeworkers' compensationarbitration awardpunitive damagesemotional distressburden of proofappellate reviewevidentiary issuesmissing documentscredibility
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robbins v. Reliance Insurance Co.

Appellant Maurice Robbins, executor of the estate of Charles M. Robbins, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Reliance Insurance Company. The case concerns a dispute over accidental death benefits under an insurance policy, specifically the conflicting benefit amounts between a 'renewal certificate' ($250,000) and a 'renewal rider' ($50,000). The appellate court first denied the appellee's request to stay the appeal based on a Pennsylvania court order, determining that the Pennsylvania court lacked jurisdiction to issue an anti-suit injunction against Texas litigation. On the merits, the court found the conflicting benefit provisions to create an ambiguity in the policy. Construing this ambiguity strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured, the court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Reliance and granted summary judgment for the appellant for the higher benefit amount. The case was remanded for a determination of attorney's fees.

Accidental Death BenefitsInsurance Policy DisputeSummary JudgmentFull Faith and Credit ClauseAnti-Suit InjunctionPennsylvania LawTexas LawInsurance RehabilitationStatutory InterpretationContract Ambiguity
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 1,383 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