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. 09-16-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2018

Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency v. Ralph J. Gillis, Gillis Borchardt & Barthel LLP, Obain Associates Limited and the Jasper/VPPA Settlement Trust

This appeal concerns Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency's (SRMPA) lawsuit against its former attorney, Ralph J. Gillis, and his firm, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and fraud related to the 'Nisco Deal' and the 'Cambridge Project' energy initiatives. SRMPA accused Gillis of self-dealing and undisclosed personal financial gains from these projects. The trial court, following a jury verdict, denied SRMPA's claims regarding the Nisco Deal due to the statute of limitations, but awarded damages for Gillis's breach of fiduciary duty concerning the Cambridge Project. SRMPA appealed the denial of equitable relief, the limitations finding, and the quantum of damages, while Gillis, Obain, and the Jasper/VPPA Settlement Trust filed cross-appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment across all contested issues.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent ConcealmentEnergy ProjectsAttorney MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsEquitable ReliefDisgorgementConstructive TrustDamagesRespondeat Superior
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbitration Between Halcot Navigation Limited Partnership and Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group

Halcot Navigation Limited Partnership (Halcot) sought to vacate a partial arbitration award from August 4, 2006, which allowed Anthony Radcliffe Steamship Company Limited (a non-signatory) to assert claims against Halcot in arbitration. Halcot argued that the arbitrability of the claim should be decided by the court, not the arbitrators. Respondents (Anthony Radcliffe and Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group B.V.) cross-moved to confirm the award, contending Halcot waived its right to object by submitting the issue to arbitration. The court found that Halcot waived its right to independent review by actively participating and briefing the arbitrability issue before the arbitration panel. Even if there was no waiver, the court independently concluded that Anthony Radcliffe could compel arbitration based on equitable estoppel, as the issues were intertwined with the Time Charter agreement between Halcot and Stolt-Nielsen. Therefore, the court DENIED Halcot’s petition to vacate and GRANTED respondents’ motion to confirm the Arbitration Award.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardNew York ConventionFederal Arbitration ActArbitrabilityWaiver of RightsEquitable EstoppelNon-Signatory ArbitrationTime Charter Agreement
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership

Jose Verdugo, a food service deliveryman, was injured in December 2003 and received workers' compensation benefits. He also initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) later determined that Verdugo's disability ended on January 24, 2006, leading to the termination of his benefits. Subsequently, the defendants in the personal injury action sought to preclude Verdugo from relitigating the duration of his disability, arguing collateral estoppel based on the WCB's finding. The court, affirming the WCB's decision, reversed the Appellate Division's order, granting the defendants' motion to preclude further litigation on disability beyond the WCB's determined date, finding the issue was fully and fairly litigated.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPersonal Injury ActionCollateral EstoppelAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardDisability DurationMedical TreatmentLost EarningsMedical ExpensesGuardianship Proceeding
References
6
Case No. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Providence Memorial Hospital, and Michael D. Compton, M.D. v. Elizabeth Rivera, as Next Friend for M.R.

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. 01-10-00516-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2011

Waterman Steamship Corporation and Maersk Line Limited v. Miguel Ruiz

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of special appearances by Waterman Steamship Corporation and Maersk Line, Limited, who were sued for negligence under the Jones Act and general maritime law following a pirate hijacking. The primary legal issue concerned whether the defendants had established sufficient minimum contacts with Texas for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed jurisdiction over Maersk due to its continuous and systematic business activities, including extensive port calls, an interactive website, a dedicated Texas employee, and marketing efforts. Conversely, the court reversed the denial for Waterman, finding its contacts with Texas to be sporadic and fortuitous, thus insufficient to support general jurisdiction, leading to Waterman's dismissal from the litigation.

Interlocutory AppealPersonal JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionMinimum ContactsJones ActMaritime LawSpecial AppearanceTexas Court of AppealsCorporate ContactsPurposeful Availment
References
73
Case No. ADJ593283 (AHM 0117827) ADJ1747148 (AHM 0117828) ADJ196184 (AHM 0117826)
Regular
Aug 01, 2011

DEBORAH ARRIOLA-LARA vs. NORDSTROMS; Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board denied Nordstrom's Petition for Removal seeking to overturn an order allowing applicant's supplemental deposition at her attorney's office. The Board found the petition lacked merit. However, the Board sua sponte granted removal on the limited issue of sanctions against Nordstrom's counsel. This action stems from counsel's inclusion of numerous extraneous and previously filed documents in their 114-page petition, constituting a violation of procedural rules and potentially a frivolous tactic warranting sanctions.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental DepositionDue Process ViolationCode of Civil Procedure Section 2025.250Good CauseWCAB Rule 10842(c)Labor Code Section 5813Bad-Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary Delay
References
4
Case No. 95 Civ. 4856 (SS)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1996

Petition of Treco

Appellants The Bank of New York and JCPL Leasing Corp. appealed a Bankruptcy Court's Modified Order, signed March 12, 1996, which broadened an earlier injunction to fully encompass all proceedings against the debtor, Meridien International Bank Limited (MIBL). They argued the injunction was overly broad, that the Bankruptcy Court failed to make specific findings of fact, arrogated a non-core determination, ignored judicial estoppel, and misapplied automatic stay provisions to an interpleader action. The District Court affirmed the Modified Order, finding that the injunction was necessary to protect the debtor's estate and that the Bankruptcy Court had proper jurisdiction to adjudicate or issue recommendations on related issues. The court also determined that the Bankruptcy Court's findings were sufficient and that neither judicial estoppel nor automatic stay interpretations limited its authority under Section 304 to fashion an appropriate remedy, especially given changed circumstances.

BankruptcyInjunctionAppealCore ProceedingsNon-Core ProceedingsJudicial EstoppelAutomatic StayDebtor's EstateConstructive TrustJurisdiction
References
23
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. 07-05-00188-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2007

Yorkshire Insurance Co., LTD. and Ocean Marine Insurance Co., LTD. v. Roy S. Seger, Individually and Shirley Faye Hoskins, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Randall Jay Seger

The case involves an appeal by Yorkshire Insurance Co., Ltd., and Ocean Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., against Roy Seger and Shirley Faye Hoskins. The insurers appealed a judgment of over $26 million in actual damages related to a "Stowers" action, stemming from the death of Randall Jay Seger in a drilling accident. The core issues involved whether the insurers were unauthorized, the applicability of a "leased-in worker" exclusion in their CGL policy, and whether the Segers' settlement demands were within policy limits. The court ruled that the 1993 amendments to the Insurance Code applied retroactively and affirmed that the Segers made a sufficient settlement demand within policy limits. However, it reversed the summary judgment on coverage, finding the "leased-in worker" exclusion unambiguous and potentially applicable, and also reversed the directed verdict on damages, as a fact issue remained regarding whether the underlying judgment was the result of a "fully adversarial trial." The case was thus largely remanded for a new trial.

Insurance disputeStowers actionNegligent failure to settleSurplus lines insuranceUnauthorized insurersContract defensesSummary judgmentDirected verdictDamagesFully adversarial trial
References
33
Case No. 2-06-472-CV, 2-07-048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2009

in Re Gerald W. Haddock

Gerald W. Haddock filed a consolidated interlocutory appeal and mandamus proceeding challenging a trial court's order staying arbitration. Haddock initiated arbitration against William F. Quinn, Paul E. Rowsey, III, John Goff, Terry N. Worrell, Crescent Real Estate Equities Company (CEI), Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited Partnership (CREELP), and Crescent Real Estate Equities, Limited (CREE) after previously litigating related claims in court. The core issue was whether Haddock waived his right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process in a prior lawsuit concerning his options and alleged mismanagement by the Crescent Entities. The court determined it had jurisdiction to decide the waiver issue, rejecting Haddock's argument that the incorporation of AAA rules delegated this to an arbitrator. The court found that Haddock's extensive litigation, including seeking injunctive relief and summary judgment in the prior suit, constituted a substantial invocation of the judicial process. This prejudiced the defendants by forcing them to incur significant expenses. Consequently, the court held that Haddock waived his right to arbitrate these claims. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

ArbitrationWaiverJudicial ProcessFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationPrejudiceLitigation ConductOption ClaimsSeverance AgreementLimited Partnership Agreement
References
62
Showing 1-10 of 15,256 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