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
Jan 16, 1996

AGIP Petroleum Co. v. Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc.

This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage and subrogation rights following damages to a drilling/production platform jacket. Plaintiffs, Underwriters of AGIP Petroleum Co., Inc., sought to recover over $15,000,000 in damages from Defendant Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of warranty related to the jacket's fabrication. Gulf Island countered that it was an "other assured" under AGIP's builder's risk policy, which included a waiver of subrogation rights against all assureds. The court, applying American federal maritime and Texas law, determined that Gulf Island was an "other assured" under the policy and that the Underwriters had waived their right to subrogation. Consequently, Gulf Island's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Underwriters' cross-motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

Summary JudgmentAdmiralty LawMarine InsuranceSubrogationAdditional AssuredWaiver of SubrogationContract InterpretationChoice of LawTexas LawFederal Maritime Law
References
64
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03319
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2023

Winston Salem RI LLC v. Ladder Capital Fin. LLC

This case concerns an appeal by Winston Salem RI LLC against Ladder Capital Finance LLC regarding the dismissal of breach of contract claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, reinstating claims related to the payment of forbearance fees and improper foreclosures, while affirming other aspects. The court clarified that a specific loan agreement section does not bar claims not challenging the reasonableness of Ladder's actions. Furthermore, it ruled that demand futility was adequately pleaded under Delaware law and that there is no heightened pleading requirement for breach of contract claims.

Breach of ContractDemand FutilityLoan AgreementsForbearance FeesImproper ForeclosuresAppellate ReviewDelaware LawPleading RequirementsContractual InterpretationMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshel v. AFW Fabric Corp.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, alleging violations of federal securities laws related to a tender offer and merger aimed at returning Concord Fabrics, Inc. to private ownership. The court, referring to prior decisions and Supreme Court precedent like Santa Fe Indus., Inc. v. Green and Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, determined that the fraud allegations were not cognizable under federal securities laws (Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5, 13, and 14 of the Exchange Act). This was due to the absence of material misrepresentations or non-disclosures and the availability of state appraisal remedies. Consequently, the federal claims were deemed legally insufficient, leading the court to decline jurisdiction over any pendent state law claims. The defendants' motion to dismiss was therefore granted.

Federal Securities LawCorporate MergerTender OfferFraud AllegationsRule 10b-5Section 10(b) Securities Exchange ActState Appraisal RemedySubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissGoing Private Transaction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cherokee Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Khoury

The case involves Relator Cherokee Steel Fabricators, Inc. seeking a mandamus to vacate a trial court's order compelling discovery of documents related to a fatal accident. Three types of documents were at issue: an adjustor's report, a consulting engineer's report, and witness statements. Cherokee claimed these documents were privileged under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b(3)(b), (c), and (d), arguing they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The court found that witness statements were explicitly exempt from discovery. It further determined that the adjustor's report and the consulting engineer's report were privileged, as there was good cause to believe a lawsuit would be filed against Cherokee given the severe consequences and the unusual nature of the investigation. The court conditionally granted the mandamus, ordering the respondent to vacate the discovery order.

Discovery DisputeMandamus ProceedingWork Product DoctrineAttorney-Client PrivilegeAnticipation of LitigationAccident InvestigationInsurance ClaimsTexas Civil ProcedurePrivilege ClaimWitness Statements
References
4
Case No. NO. 2-04-040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Melchor Galindo v. Imperial Group, L.P. A/K/A Transportation Technologies Industries, Imperial Fabricating, Inc. and Imperial Fabrication

Appellant Melchor Galindo filed a wrongful termination suit against Appellees Imperial Group, L.P. after being laid off following a work-related back injury and subsequent return to work with restrictions. Imperial filed a motion for summary judgment, which Galindo's counsel failed to timely respond to due to a calendaring error and staff turnover. The trial court denied Galindo's oral motion for leave to file a late response and granted Imperial's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas reversed and remanded the case, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave, as Galindo demonstrated good cause for the late filing (clerical error, not conscious indifference) and no undue prejudice to Imperial would have resulted from a short delay.

Wrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionLate ResponseGood CauseUndue PrejudiceClerical ErrorMiscalendaringAppellate ReviewProcedural Error
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Computerized Steel Fabricators, Inc.

The reorganized Chapter XI debtor, Computerized Steel Fabricators, Inc., initiated a motion to hold Pension Fund Iron Workers Local 455 in contempt. Computerized argued that its Chapter XI confirmation order discharged any potential withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), which the Pension Fund was attempting to collect post-confirmation. However, the court determined that Computerized's collective bargaining agreement was not rejected during bankruptcy and remained in effect, and thus the withdrawal liability arose in June 1982, post-confirmation, when Computerized ceased operations. The court held that this post-confirmation claim was not provable or dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Act and that the MPPAA's application was constitutional and not retroactive. Consequently, the application to hold the Pension Fund in contempt was denied.

BankruptcyChapter XIContemptMPPAAERISAWithdrawal LiabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementPost-confirmation ClaimsDischargeExecutory Contract
References
15
Case No. E2001-00258-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2001

George Tipton v. Axis Fabrication & Machine Co.

This personal injury case involves George Michael Tipton, who was injured by a metal cutting machine operated by Jeff Thomas at Axis Fabrication & Machine Company. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants, citing a failure to prove lack of reasonable care. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the defendants breached their duty of care by not warning Tipton of potential dangers and failing to replace a machine guard. The appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to consider the defendants' negligence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

personal injurypremises liabilitydirected verdictnegligenceduty of careforeseeabilityworkplace injurymachine operationwarning signsvicarious liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gude v. Elm Coated Fabrics Div. of W. R. Grace Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding an occupational disease claim. The claimant, employed by Elm Coated Fabrics, developed pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema due to workplace exposure. The central issue was determining the date of disablement to establish liability between two insurance carriers: Maryland Casualty Co. (carrier on initial diagnosis, March 20, 1973) and CNA Insurance Company (carrier on total disablement, August 24, 1973). The Board, affirmed by a referee, set the date of disablement as March 20, 1973, holding Maryland liable and requiring reimbursement to CNA. The employer and Maryland appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence and precedent supporting the earlier date.

Occupational DiseaseDate of DisablementPulmonary FibrosisEmphysemaCarrier LiabilityMedical Treatment DateWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSubstantial EvidenceReimbursementInsurance Coverage Dispute
References
5
Case No. 01-06-00879-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2006

in Re General Metal Fabrication Corp., GMF Leasing, Inc., and Arnold Curry

Relators, General Metal Fabricating Corp., GMF Leasing, Inc., and Arnold Curry, sought a writ of mandamus against the trial court's orders to sever their breach of Rule 11 settlement agreement claim and deny their motion to abate. The underlying case involved a business dispute among shareholders of the GMF corporations, which resulted in a conditional settlement agreement. After the jury verdict, disputes arose regarding the enforceability of the settlement, leading Relators to file for breach of settlement and seek abatement of the final judgment. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion in severing the claims and denying abatement, emphasizing that settlement enforcement should ideally occur under the original cause number. Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, directing the trial court to vacate its orders and grant the motion to abate.

MandamusSeveranceAbatementSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractBusiness DisputeShareholdersRule 11Trial Court DiscretionAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 805 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