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

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State, Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Reynolds-Land, Inc.

This is a summary judgment case where the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (Department) sought indemnity from Reynolds-Land, Inc. (Reynolds-Land) based on a written agreement. An employee of Reynolds-Land, Grover Hicks, was injured and received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA). Hicks then sued the Department for negligence, and TEIA intervened for subrogation. The Department settled with Hicks and TEIA, paying $25,000 to TEIA for its subrogation interest. The Department then filed a third-party action against Reynolds-Land for indemnity for this $25,000 payment. Reynolds-Land moved for summary judgment, arguing the indemnity agreement only covered its own negligence and not the Department's, and that the 'express negligence doctrine' from Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Const. Co. was not met. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against the Department, ruling that the indemnity clause lacked the specificity required by the express negligence doctrine to cover the Department's own alleged negligence.

Indemnity AgreementSummary JudgmentExpress Negligence DoctrineWorkers' CompensationSubrogationContractual InterpretationThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
1
Case No. 06-21-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2022

Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, UATP Management, LLC, Zoya Enterprises, Ltd., and UA Holdings, LLC v. Hamza Lakhani

Hamza Lakhani, an appellee, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC and several other entities (appellants) after suffering injuries at an adventure park. The appellants sought to compel arbitration based on a release signed by Lakhani. The trial court denied this motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial for UATP, Zoya, and UA, concluding no valid arbitration agreement existed between them and Lakhani. However, the court found the arbitration agreement enforceable against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, but severed a provision that prohibited the award of punitive or exemplary damages, deeming it unconscionable. The case was subsequently reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to compel arbitration for Lakhani's claims against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, consistent with the modified agreement.

ArbitrationPersonal InjuryContract LawUnconscionabilityPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesSeverability ClauseFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Gross NegligenceAppellate Decision
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keefe v. General Accident Insurance

Plaintiff Violet O'Keefe initiated an action against General Accident Insurance Company, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation based on age and sex, violating Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. O'Keefe claimed a discriminatory work environment and unlawful termination following her refusal of a proposed job transfer. The defendant argued O'Keefe's performance was poor and the transfer was a lateral move. The District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the federal discrimination and retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether General Accident's reasons for termination were pretextual. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law claims, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
19
Case No. 13-21-00361-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Accident Fund General Insurance Company v. Rodrigo Mendiola

Rodrigo Mendiola, a truck driver, suffered severe burns in an accident, leading to an above-the-knee amputation and significant injury to his left hand. His employer's workers' compensation insurer, Accident Fund General Insurance Company, disputed his claim for lifetime income benefits based on the total loss of use of his left hand. The trial court, applying the Travelers Insurance Co. v. Seabolt standard, found sufficient evidence that Mendiola's hand lacked substantial utility, entitling him to benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the application of the Seabolt standard and concluding the evidence factually supported the finding of total loss of use.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsTotal Loss of UseBurn InjuriesHand InjuryAmputationMedical EvidenceFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewStare Decisis
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Complaint of Nolty J. Theriot, Inc.

Theriot, a vessel owner, sought to limit its liability for injuries sustained by its crewmembers in a land-based car accident while they were being transported for a crew change. The court determined it lacked admiralty jurisdiction because the accident, occurring on land and about twenty miles from the waterway, bore no substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. While the Jones Act might provide federal admiralty jurisdiction for a seaman's claim, the limitation of liability statute itself does not offer an independent basis for jurisdiction. The court concluded that the purposes of the Limitation of Liability Act were not served by this case as the vessel was not involved in the accident, and thus, Theriot's action was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Admiralty JurisdictionLimitation of LiabilityMaritime LawJones ActSubject Matter JurisdictionLand-based AccidentCrew TransportVessel Owner LiabilityFederal CourtsMotion to Dismiss
References
12
Case No. 03-96-00283-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1997

Marshall Land v. AT & S Transportation, Inc.

Marshall Land sued his employer, AT & S Transportation, Inc., claiming a failure to provide a safe work environment after sustaining a back injury. AT & S, a nonsubscriber to the workers' compensation system, filed a counterclaim for sanctions under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court awarded AT & S $48,000 in attorney's fees as sanctions against Land, finding his pleadings groundless, brought in bad faith, and false, and that Land committed fraud. Land appealed, arguing the sanctions order was defective for not stating particulars of good cause and that the court abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Land waived the complaint regarding lack of particularity by not objecting at trial and that the partial record provided was insufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion regarding the sanctions.

SanctionsRule 13Appellate ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionSufficiency of EvidenceWaiverGood CauseAttorney's FeesCivil ProcedureEmployer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Industrial Accident Board v. Magana

The Industrial Accident Board of the State of Texas appealed a permanent injunction issued by a trial court, which prevented the Board from conducting an investigative hearing into allegedly unfair claims handling practices by appellees, Rosa Magana, et al. The trial court's injunction was based on its conclusion that portions of the Workers’ Compensation Act were discriminatory, specifically regarding the right to appeal from investigative hearing sanctions. This appellate court, however, did not address the merits of the appeal. Instead, it granted the appellees' motion to dismiss, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction. The court determined that the Board had previously elected and perfected a direct appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which subsequently dismissed that appeal for want of jurisdiction, thus precluding a further appeal in this court.

Appellate JurisdictionDirect AppealWant of JurisdictionPermanent InjunctionWorkers' Compensation ActConstitutional LawStatutory DiscriminationProcedural ChronologyElection of RemediesTexas Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1988

Claim of Harvey v. Allegany Timber & Land Co.

Claimant, a logger, was severely injured while working for Allegany Timber & Land Company, Inc. The central issue on appeal was whether the claimant was an employee or an independent contractor at the time of injury. The Workers' Compensation Board found claimant to be an employee, based on evidence such as being supplied with a bulldozer, directed on tree cutting, and subject to discharge. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the resolution of such factual issues falls within the Board's exclusive fact-finding function, and there was substantial evidence to support its determination.

Workers' CompensationLogger InjuryEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceFactual IssueAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barker v. Peconic Landing at Southold, Inc.

Plaintiff Chris J. Barker sued his employer, Peconic Landing at Southold, Inc., and three individual employees, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under federal and New York State law. Plaintiff, who suffers from hearing loss and a rotator cuff injury, claims he was discriminated against based on his disabilities and retaliated against for reporting alleged misconduct, including drug use and theft, at the facility. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the New York whistleblower statute (Section 740) and that initiating a Section 740 claim waives other state and federal discrimination claims. The court denied the motion, finding that the whistleblower claim did not waive the discrimination claims and that the allegations regarding drug use and theft were sufficient at this stage to state a plausible claim under Section 740.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationDisability DiscriminationWhistleblower ProtectionAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawNew York Labor LawMotion to DismissPlausibility StandardPublic Health and Safety
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 11,172 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