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 26, 2011

United States Ex Rel. Lamesa National Bank v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (In Re Schooler)

This memorandum opinion addresses the motion for prejudgment interest filed by Lamesa National Bank (LNB) against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Liberty Mutual was previously found liable to the bankruptcy estate of Robert and Tina Schooler for $112,247.66. The court exercised its discretion to award prejudgment interest, citing federal law and a strong presumption in favor of such awards, which aim to compensate the estate for the loss of funds. Adopting guidance from state law for the interest rate, the court set it at 5.0% compounded annually, with accrual commencing from the complaint's filing date of September 8, 2009.

Prejudgment InterestBankruptcy EstateFederal LawDiscretionary AwardAccrual DateInterest RateFifth CircuitNorthern District of TexasBankruptcy CodeInsurance Liability
References
15
Case No. M2019-00951-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2020

Liberty Construction Company, LLC v. Peter H. Curry

Liberty Construction Company, LLC sued Peter H. Curry and Patricia P. Curry for breach of a written stipulated sum contract and an oral cost-plus contract for the construction of a commercial building. Liberty sought payment for additional work, while the Currys counterclaimed for payments made directly to suppliers and costs to correct a defect in a bioretention pond. The trial court ruled in favor of Liberty on the cost-plus agreement but denied recovery for both parties under the stipulated sum contract and dismissed the Currys' counterclaim regarding the pond defect. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's denial of credit to the Currys for certain direct payments to suppliers, its ruling on the commencement date of prejudgment interest, and its finding that the Currys did not provide Liberty with notice and an opportunity to cure the pond defect. In all other respects, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Construction ContractCost-Plus ContractStipulated Sum ContractBreach of ContractMechanic's LienMaterialman's LienDamages CalculationPrejudgment InterestOpportunity to CureConstruction Defects
References
27
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler Weldments Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Employers Butler Weldments Corporation and Bryan Construction Company sued a class of workers' compensation insurance carriers, including Liberty Mutual and Highlands Insurance Company, alleging wrongful withholding of surplus funds and demanding interest. The dispute arose because the carriers held Facility surplus amounts until the Texas Department of Insurance established the appropriate "pass-through allowance." The trial court dismissed the employers' claims for failure to state a cognizable cause of action. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that policyholders have no vested property right to the surplus until the Department acts, and that statutory remedies are exclusive, thus barring common-law claims for interest on the delayed payment.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureSpecial ExceptionsTexas Department of InsuranceRetrospectively Rated PoliciesSurplus FundsInterest ClaimsVested RightsAdministrative Action
References
17
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04245
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2024

Diluglio v. Liberty Mut. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Louis A. Diluglio, Jr., an auto damage appraiser, brought an action against his employer, Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., and manager, John Austin, alleging retaliation under New York State Human Rights Law and Labor Law § 215, assault by Austin, and vicarious liability against Liberty Mutual. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the retaliation claims against Liberty Mutual, finding that the plaintiff did not engage in protected activity under the NYSHRL or identify a violated Labor Law provision. It also granted summary judgment on the vicarious liability claim, concluding that Austin's alleged tortious conduct was not within the scope of his employment. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the assault claim, as the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Austin's physical conduct did not place the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact.

RetaliationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Law § 215AssaultVicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDiscriminatory PracticesProtected Activity
References
19
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. ADJ744923 (ANA 0385182)
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

CHARLES BUFFINGTON III vs. FACTORY MUTUAL, INFRARED TESTING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

Factory Mutual seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision finding Liberty Mutual provided coverage for Infrared Testing, Inc. during the applicant's injury period. Factory admits it sold its interest in Infrared before the cumulative injury period, arguing Liberty's coverage stipulation was a mistake. The Board dismissed Factory's petition, finding Factory lacks standing as it had no interest in the employer after August 2, 2000. The Board also indicated it would have denied the petition on the merits due to Liberty's stipulation and the elapsed premium collection period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersStipulationCoverage disputeMistake in coverageSale of interestUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundStandingAggrieved party
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

A claimant, a member of the Buffalo Destroyers football team, was injured and filed a workers' compensation claim with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Liberty Mutual denied coverage, arguing the claimant was not an employee of its insured, Source One Group, and that the policy could not cover a New York entity. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found the claimant a dual employee, then a special employee of the Destroyers and a general employee of Source One, entitling him to coverage. The court determined that while the claimant was not a de facto employee of Source One, Liberty Mutual was estopped from denying coverage due to its conduct, including issuing a certificate of insurance and accepting premiums. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's decision, holding Liberty Mutual responsible for the claimant's workers' compensation benefits.

Insurance Coverage DisputeEmployer LiabilityProfessional Employee OrganizationSpecial Employment DoctrineEstoppel in InsuranceAssigned-Risk Insurance PolicySports Athlete InjuryAppellate DecisionPayroll Audit DisputeCertificate of Insurance Validity
References
11
Case No. 2-08-444-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Roy Burk

Roy Burk sustained a work-related back injury in 1998, which necessitated multiple surgeries, including one for cauda equina syndrome. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, who accepted the initial injury, later contested the extent of Burk's injury, specifically arguing that his work injury did not cause his polyneuropathy and foot ulceration. Following a Contested Case Hearing and an affirmation by an appeals panel in Burk's favor, Liberty Mutual initiated judicial review. The trial court subsequently ruled that Burk's work-related injury did indeed extend to his polyneuropathy and foot ulcerations. Liberty Mutual appealed this decision, citing legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings, highlighting inconsistencies in the expert testimony presented by Liberty Mutual.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceCausationPolyneuropathyFoot UlcerationBack InjuryCauda Equina SyndromeMedical Expert TestimonyTexas Law
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 3,399 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