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. 03-04-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2006

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Texas Department of Insurance and Jose Montemayor, as Commissioner of Insurance Amber, Inc., Champagne-Webber, Inc. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. And Royal Seating Corp.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and its affiliates appealed a district court judgment requiring them to issue rebates to workers' compensation policyholders for 1991 and 1992 surpluses. The appellants argued that a rule from the Texas Department of Insurance, which mandated these pass-throughs, unconstitutionally impaired their contractual rights, deprived them of property without due process, and constituted an impermissible retroactive law. The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the Department's rule was a valid exercise of legislative power, served a legitimate public purpose by preventing insurers from retaining unforeseen windfalls, and did not violate constitutional prohibitions regarding retroactive legislation, contract impairment, or due process rights.

Insurance LawWorkers' Compensation InsuranceRetrospective Rating PlanInsurance RegulationConstitutional ChallengesContractual ObligationsDue ProcessRetroactive LegislationAppellate Court DecisionTexas Department of Insurance
References
35
Case No. 04-08-00464-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2008

in Re Liberty Insurance Corporation

This memorandum opinion addresses a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Relator Liberty Insurance Corporation (Liberty Mutual). Liberty Mutual sought to compel the trial court to grant its motion to disqualify opposing counsel, Doyle Raizner LLP, in an underlying bad faith workers' compensation case. The basis for disqualification was that attorney Patrick Dennis, an associate at Doyle Raizner, previously worked for Vinson & Elkins, LLP, and handled matters for Liberty Mutual that were allegedly substantially related to the current case, posing a threat of revealing confidences. The trial court denied the motion to disqualify. The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, ultimately concluding that it could reasonably have denied the motion given conflicting evidence regarding the substantial relatedness of the matters and the receipt of confidential information. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was denied.

MandamusAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestWorkers' CompensationBad Faith InsuranceAttorney-Client RelationshipConfidential InformationAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas Law
References
9
Case No. 13-05-256-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2006

Clark Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Insurance Corporation

Clark Freight Lines, Inc. appealed the trial court's dismissal of its declaratory-judgment action against Liberty Insurance Corporation. The dispute concerned a billing discrepancy over a workers' compensation insurance policy issued by Liberty to Clark Freight. The trial court had dismissed the action, agreeing with Liberty's plea in abatement, which argued Clark Freight failed to exhaust administrative remedies in Arkansas. The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that the Arkansas Insurance Department's communication indicated litigation was the only available recourse, making further administrative exhaustion futile. The case was therefore remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Declaratory JudgmentWorkers' Compensation InsuranceAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of RemediesPlea in AbatementArkansas LawAppellate ReviewBilling DisputeInsurance PolicyCourt of Appeals
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2007

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania

This case concerns an appeal regarding an insurance dispute between Liberty Mutual (excess insurer) and AIG (primary insurer) over a $1.5 million settlement payment in a personal injury action. The underlying action involved an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation, a subcontractor, suing the project's owner and construction manager under the Labor Law. AIG, General's primary insurer, had refused to participate in the defense or settlement. The Supreme Court's order, which limited plaintiff's recovery to $500,000, was modified on appeal. The appellate court increased AIG's potential liability limit to $1,000,000, pending a determination of whether the employee sustained a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court affirmed that AIG, as a primary insurer, must exhaust its coverage before Liberty's excess coverage is implicated and is not entitled to apportionment with the excess insurer.

Insurance Coverage DisputeExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceIndemnificationSubrogationWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentPolicy LimitsApportionment of Liability
References
6
Case No. 14-10-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2010

in Re Liberty Insurance Corporation and Michelle Yaklin

The Relators, Liberty Insurance Corporation and Michelle Yaklin, filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel Judge Josefina Rendon to set aside her order denying their plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying plea sought to dismiss a bad faith lawsuit filed by Sheila Kennedy, alleging Kennedy failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Kennedy's claims stemmed from Liberty's denial of workers' compensation benefits and a preauthorization request for knee surgery. The appellate court determined that Kennedy had not exhausted her administrative remedies regarding the denial of benefits or the specific medical treatment requested. Therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Kennedy's claims. The petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, directing the trial court to dismiss the case.

MandamusExhaustion of administrative remediesWorkers' compensationPlea to the jurisdictionMedical benefitsPreauthorizationBad faith claimInsurance carrierTrial court jurisdictionAbuse of discretion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Insurance v. Dixie Electric, LLC

Liberty Insurance Corporation filed a declaratory judgment action against its insured, Dixie Electric, LLC, seeking a declaration that it had no obligation under an insurance policy to indemnify Dixie for a settlement in an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. The underlying lawsuit stemmed from the fatal electrocution of a Dixie employee, Eddie Hilburn, and was pursued under New Mexico's *Delgado* claim, which requires proof of non-accidental, willful conduct. Liberty argued that its policy covered only "bodily injury by accident," a standard incompatible with the *Delgado* claim. Dixie contended that a *Delgado* claim was equivalent to gross negligence, which should satisfy the policy's "accident" requirement under Texas law. The court rejected Dixie's argument, concluding that the *Delgado* standard for liability and the policy's "accident" requirement were mutually exclusive. Consequently, the court granted Liberty's motion for summary judgment, denying Dixie's request for indemnification.

declaratory judgmentinsurance coverageemployer liabilityworkers compensationbodily injury by accidentNew Mexico lawTexas lawDelgado claimsummary judgmentintentional tort
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Insurance Corp. v. Camero

Blanca Camero sued Liberty Insurance Corporation for wrongful handling of her workers' compensation claim after Liberty denied her initial claim and a request for surgery. A jury found Liberty breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing and engaged in unfair practices, awarding Camero damages. Liberty appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Camero did not exhaust administrative remedies regarding the medical necessity of the surgery. The appellate court agreed, concluding that without a determination by the Workers' Compensation Division on the medical necessity of the initial surgery, the trial court could not award damages for delayed treatment. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, rendering a take-nothing judgment against Camero.

Insurance Bad FaithWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionSubject Matter JurisdictionMedical Treatment DenialDelayed Medical Care DamagesIndependent Injury RuleAppellate ReversalTexas Insurance Code ViolationsDuty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
References
9
Case No. 11-15-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2016

Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Mary Ann Tarango, Surviving Spouse of Manual Tarango

This case involves an appeal from the judicial review of an administrative decision by a Texas Division of Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. The panel had previously denied workers’ compensation death benefits to Mary Ann Tarango, surviving spouse of Manuel Tarango, due to alleged abandonment. The trial court subsequently reversed this administrative decision, ruling in favor of Mary Ann and entitling her to benefits. However, the Eleventh Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by improperly placing the burden of proof on Liberty Insurance Corporation to demonstrate abandonment, rather than on Mary Ann Tarango as the party seeking judicial review. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewBurden of ProofAbandonmentDeath BenefitsSpousal EligibilityTexas Labor CodeAppeals PanelTrial Court ErrorAdministrative Decision
References
4
Case No. 14-02-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Limited, and Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Limited, D/B/A Village Builders v. Great American Insurance Company, American Dynasty Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Markel American Insurance Company Gerling America Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Westchester Fire Ins Company

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute between homebuilder Lennar Corporation and its CGL insurance carriers over damages caused by defective stucco (EIFS) applied to homes. The court analyzed whether negligently defective construction constitutes an "occurrence" and distinguished between covered costs (repairing actual water damage) and non-covered costs (preventative EIFS replacement, overhead). While affirming summary judgment for several insurers due to unmet self-insured retentions based on individual homes as separate occurrences, the court reversed for American Dynasty and Markel, citing unresolved factual issues regarding "known loss" and policy conditions. Lennar's extra-contractual claims against American Dynasty were ultimately denied for lack of proven damages or statutory violations.

Insurance Policy InterpretationConstruction DefectsCommercial Liability InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimsStucco DefectsDuty to IndemnifySelf-Insured RetentionsKnown Loss PrincipleSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Law
References
96
Case No. 3-91-003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1993

Texas Commissioner of Insurance Georgia D. Flint, Permanent Receiver of Standard Financial Indemnity Corporation v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Employers Insurance of Wausau, a Mutual Company, the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Houston General Insurance Company, CIGNA Insurance Company of Texas, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Standard Financial Indemnity Corporation (SFIC) appealed the Travis County district court's judgment dismissing its suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SFIC alleged antitrust and tortious interference claims, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool and its members conspired to monopolize the market and unfairly treated its servicing company application. The Hidalgo County district court transferred venue to Travis County, a decision SFIC contested. The Court of Appeals found that SFIC had pleaded valid common law causes of action not solely governed by statutory procedures and that the venue transfer based on forum non conveniens was unauthorized under Texas law. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case with instructions to return it to Hidalgo County for further proceedings.

AntitrustTortious InterferenceSubject Matter JurisdictionVenue TransferForum Non ConveniensWorkers' Compensation Assigned Risk PoolTexas Free Enterprise and Antitrust ActStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDistrict Court
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 18,500 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