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. 14-09-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2010

Zeno Digital Solutions, L.L.C. v. K Griff Investigations, Inc.

Zeno Digital Solutions, L.L.C. appealed a trial court's judgment awarding K Griff Investigations, Inc. lost profit damages. K Griff had sued Zeno for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract after copiers sold by Zeno experienced mechanical problems. The trial court awarded K Griff lost profits, repair costs, and attorney's fees. Zeno contended that the lost profit award was unsupported by evidence, specifically arguing K Griff failed to account for expenses and improperly based calculations on gross revenue instead of net profits. The appellate court agreed, finding the evidence legally insufficient to prove lost profit damages. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the lost profit damages award and affirmed the remainder of the trial court's judgment.

DamagesLost ProfitsGross RevenueNet ProfitsDeceptive Trade Practices ActFraudNegligent MisrepresentationBreach of ContractCopiersEquipment
References
12
Case No. 113 AD3d 1184
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2014

Vincent v. Landi

Plaintiff David Vincent fractured his ankle on black ice at defendant Angelo T. Landi's restaurant. A jury found Landi negligent and awarded damages for past pain and suffering and lost profits, but no future damages. Both parties cross-appealed, with plaintiffs arguing inadequate damages and defendant arguing insufficient proof of notice. The court affirmed the finding of negligence, citing defendant's actual knowledge of a recurring icy condition. However, the court found the jury's damage awards for past and future pain and suffering and lost profits to be inadequate, materially deviating from reasonable compensation. A new trial on damages was ordered unless defendant stipulated to increased awards for past pain and suffering ($75,000), future pain and suffering ($100,000), past lost profits ($54,017.50), and future lost profits ($203,018.85).

NegligencePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilitySlip and FallBlack IceDamagesPain and SufferingLost ProfitsAnkle FractureOrthopedic Surgery
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ishin Speed Sport, Inc. v. Rutherford

Johnny Rutherford and Johnny Rutherford, Inc. (plaintiffs) sued Ishin Speed Sport, Inc. (defendant) for breach of contract and lost profits. The dispute arose from an agreement for Rutherford to establish and promote a racing and driving school, for which he was to receive guaranteed compensation and a commission on school revenues. Ishin ceased payments, arguing the contract terms were not fully agreed upon, particularly regarding commission calculation and the corporate entity involved. A jury found in favor of the Rutherfords, awarding them $226,388.87 in damages for lost profits. Ishin appealed the verdict, challenging the trial court's jury instructions and the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for both the contract's existence and the calculation of lost profits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on the contract and lost profits, and that no abuse of discretion occurred regarding the jury instructions.

Breach of contractLost profitsJury instructionsSufficiency of evidenceContract formationImplied contractExpert witnessRacing schoolAutomobile industryDamages
References
32
Case No. E2014-00192-COA-R3-CV-FILED-MAY 26, 2015
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2015

Borla Performance Industries, Inc. v. Universal Tool and Engineering, Inc.

Borla Performance Industries, Inc. (Borla) sued Universal Tool and Engineering, Inc. (UTE) for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) regarding machine repairs. Borla alleged lost profits due to UTE's delays. The trial court dismissed Borla's misrepresentation and TCPA claims, awarded Borla $11,839.98 for breach of contract on Michigan benders, but denied lost profits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Borla failed to prove lost profits with reasonable certainty and no deceptive practices for the TCPA claim, while upholding UTE's breach on the Michigan benders.

Breach of ContractLost ProfitsTennessee Consumer Protection ActAppellate ReviewBench TrialSufficiency of EvidenceDamagesEconomic DownturnPlant RelocationMachine Repair
References
20
Case No. 13-05-00281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Dana Corporation v. Microtherm, Inc. and David E. Seitz, Individually

Microtherm Inc. sued Dana Corporation over defective thermistors used in water heaters, with David E. Seitz also suing individually for lost patent royalties. A jury found Dana liable for knowingly violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and awarded Microtherm substantial damages, including lost profits and business value. Dana appealed, challenging liability and damage findings. The appellate court affirmed Dana's liability for breach of express warranty but found the evidence legally insufficient for the jury's divisible lost profit and lost value damages against Dana. The court remanded the attorneys' fees issue for retrial and affirmed the directed verdict against Seitz's individual claims due to lack of privity and the economic loss rule.

Products LiabilityBreach of WarrantyDTPAEconomic Loss RuleExpert TestimonyCausationDamagesLost ProfitsBusiness ValueAttorneys' Fees
References
81
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Luby's Fuddruckers Restaurants, LLC

This case concerns an appeal by the State and a cross-appeal by Luby's Fuddruckers Restaurants, LLC regarding a condemnation suit. The State challenged a lost profits award to Luby's, arguing it constituted an impermissible double recovery. Luby's cross-appealed the trial court's exclusion of certain jury charge language related to the value of kitchen equipment as fixtures. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion in the jury charge but agreed with the State that the lost profits award was a double recovery, thereby reversing that portion of the judgment and affirming the rest.

CondemnationEminent DomainJust CompensationLost ProfitsDouble RecoveryJury ChargeFixturesMarket Value AppraisalProperty TakingTexas Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apollo Steel Corp. v. Melco Cranes, Inc.

An employee of Apollo Steel Corporation was injured when a box tank fell from a crane provided and operated by the defendant. As a result, Apollo claimed its workers’ compensation insurance premium increased by 17% and its experience rating rose, disqualifying it from certain contracts and causing lost profits. Apollo sought damages for these increased premium costs and lost profits. Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, ruling that these damages were too remote and speculative to be compensable. The court stated that while the accident might have contributed, the consequences resulted from a myriad of events and factors in establishing the rating and premium, thus not solely traceable to the event.

Workers' Compensation PremiumExperience RatingLost ProfitsRemote DamagesSpeculative DamagesProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCrane AccidentThird-Party Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Mercantile Exchange Corp. v. Dailey Petroleum Corp.

Dailey Petroleum Corporation sued Houston Mercantile Exchange Corporation and several individuals for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition concerning drilling jar designs. The jury found in favor of Dailey, awarding $1.6 million in actual damages and over $2 million in punitive damages. On appeal, the court reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence for actual damages, specifically lost profits. The appellate court concluded that the economist's calculation of lost profits was based on flawed assumptions and legally insufficient, leading to the reversal of both the actual and punitive damage awards. The remainder of the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Trade SecretsUnfair CompetitionLost ProfitsPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceEconomic DamagesConspiracyOil Field EquipmentDrilling Jar
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy Con., Inc. v. Forman

This appeal concerns a trespass-to-try-title action regarding property in Galveston. The court found sufficient evidence for the jury's finding of prior possession not abandoned by the plaintiff, Glenn W. Forman, Jr. However, the evidence was legally insufficient to support an award for lost-profits damages. The trial court also erred by awarding Forman title to improvements and by including specific language concerning their removal. The judgment was modified to remove the lost-profits damages, the improvements award, the contentious language, and a reference to 'strips and gores' in the property description. The judgment, as modified, was affirmed, confirming a sufficient description of the subject property.

Trespass to Try TitleProperty LawPrior PossessionLost Profits DamagesImprovements on PropertyAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJudgment ModificationProperty DescriptionReal Estate
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lenox Barbeque & Catering, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County

Lenox Barbeque and Catering, Inc. appealed a summary judgment dismissing its inverse-condemnation claim against Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Metro). Lenox sought compensation for lost profits after settling a prior condemnation action and conveying property to Metro for a light-rail line. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that Lenox's claim failed as a matter of law because the prior settlement and conveyance constituted a release of all foreseeable damages. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the alleged lost profits were damages that reasonably could have been foreseen and determined at the time of the property conveyance, thus treating the conveyance as a release of Lenox's inverse-condemnation claim.

Inverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentLost ProfitsEminent DomainCondemnation SettlementProperty ConveyanceRelease of ClaimsForeseeable DamagesTexas ConstitutionAppellate Review
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 856 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