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

Associated Indemnity Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, a workmen's compensation insurer for a temporary labor contractor (Greene's Temporaries, Inc.), sued Associated Indemnity Company, the insurer for a customer (Frito-Lay Company), seeking subrogation for a compensation claim paid to an injured temporary employee. Hartford contended the loss was covered by Associated's policy as the employee was under Frito-Lay's control. The court reversed the trial court's decision in favor of Hartford, denying equitable subrogation. The appellate court found that Hartford had collected premiums for the temporary employees and was charged with knowledge of the contractual arrangement, thus preventing unjust enrichment if subrogation were granted.

Workmen's CompensationTemporary EmploymentSubrogationInsurance LawBorrowed Servant DoctrineRight of ControlEquitable RemediesUnjust EnrichmentInsurance PremiumsContractual Agreements
References
17
Case No. 3-94-122-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1995

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. State Board of Insurance, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Houston General Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, United States Fire Insurance Company

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (Facility) appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an order by the State Board of Insurance. The Board had ordered the Facility to indemnify several servicing companies for legal expenses incurred in litigation brought by Standard Financial Indemnity Company (SFIC). The Facility argued that Article 5.76-2, section 2.05(i) of the Texas Insurance Code, which states the Facility 'may not indemnify the servicing companies,' terminated the servicing companies' right to indemnification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the servicing companies had a vested contractual right to indemnification which arose when they entered into servicing company agreements, and that section 2.05(i) could not be applied retroactively to impair these vested rights. The court found that the law existing at the time the contracts were made, which included the Facility's bylaws allowing for indemnification, was incorporated into the agreements.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawContractual RightsVested RightsRetroactive Application of LawIndemnificationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance Code
References
32
Case No. 13-99-006-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2000

Carroll, Everett and Betty Carroll, Individually and D/B/A Carroll Water Well Service and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Castillo, Santiago, Professional Insurance Agents, Inc. and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company

This case involves Everett Carroll and Betty Carroll, owners of Carroll Water Well Service, appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The dispute arose after an employee, Santiago Castillo, suffered a thumb injury requiring amputation while operating a drilling rig, and Carroll, who did not subscribe to workers' compensation insurance, was sued by Castillo. Carroll then sued Lumbermens, his commercial automobile liability insurer, which denied coverage. Lumbermens sought summary judgment based on four policy exclusions: (1) injuries not arising from the use of an automobile, (2) the mobile equipment exclusion, (3) the employer's liability exclusion, and (4) the fellow employee exclusion. The appellate court found ambiguities in all four exclusion clauses, interpreting them in favor of the insured (Carroll). Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Insurance lawCommercial automobile liabilityPolicy constructionSummary judgmentExclusion clausesMobile equipmentEmployer's liabilityFellow employeeAmbiguityDe novo review
References
15
Case No. 03-93-00580-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1995

John Thibodeaux v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company

This appeal arises from a workers' compensation suit where Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company sued John Thibodeaux to set aside an award from the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission. Thibodeaux cross-petitioned to mature the award, alleging it was final and unpaid. The trial court denied Thibodeaux's petition and rendered judgment for Lumbermens, finding Thibodeaux was not injured in the course of employment. Thibodeaux challenged the denial of his petition, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to Lumbermens' delay in causing citation to issue. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Lumbermens filed its petition with a bona fide intent to obtain waiver of service without delay.

jurisdictional challengeworkers' compensation awardtimely filingcitation servicebona fide intentappellate reviewtrial court judgmentdue diligencestatute of limitationsTexas law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.

This case involves a dispute over an indemnity agreement between Sonat Exploration Company (Sonat) and Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. (Cudd) following an oilfield explosion in Louisiana that killed four Cudd employees. Sonat sought indemnity from Cudd and coverage as an additional insured from Cudd's insurer, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (Lumbermens), after settling claims for approximately $28 million. The core issue is which state's law, Texas or Louisiana, governs the Master Service Agreement's indemnity provisions, as they conflict on enforceability. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' decision to reverse the trial court's application of Texas law and remanded the case for further proceedings under Louisiana law, based on the parties' justified expectations inferred from their contract despite no explicit choice of law for Louisiana operations.

Choice of LawIndemnity AgreementOilfield ServicesMaster Service AgreementLouisiana LawTexas LawContract InterpretationInsurance CoverageRule 11 AgreementVirtual Representation
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Indemnity Co. v. Pate

Home Indemnity, a worker's compensation carrier, made payments to employee Charles Riddle, who subsequently sued Allied Chemical Corporation in federal court. Home Indemnity's attempt to intervene in the federal suit to assert its subrogation lien was denied as untimely. Riddle and Allied Chemical settled without addressing Home Indemnity's claim. Consequently, Home Indemnity filed a state court suit against Riddle, Allied Chemical, attorney Gordon Pate, and his law firm, alleging conversion for disbursing funds without acknowledging the lien. Pate's motion for summary judgment, citing res judicata/collateral estoppel and good faith reliance on the federal judgment, was granted by the trial court. The appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that Home Indemnity was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel since it was not a party to the federal judgment on the merits of its claim, and that good faith is not a defense to conversion.

Subrogation LienSummary Judgment AppealRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelConversionInsurance Carrier RightsThird-Party LiabilityTexas Civil PracticeFederal Judgment ImpactAttorney Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 1979

Texas General Indemnity Co. v. McKay

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Indemnity Company, after the trial court denied its motion for a new trial. A default judgment was entered against Indemnity Company in a workers' compensation case filed by plaintiff McKay, awarding total permanent disability and medical expenses. The defendant failed to appear for trial, leading to the default judgment on June 21, 1979. Indemnity Company's subsequent motions for a new trial were overruled by operation of law on September 3, 1979. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the defendant did not satisfy the legal requirements for setting aside a default judgment, specifically regarding the reasons for non-appearance, presenting a meritorious defense, and ensuring no prejudice to the plaintiff.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialWorkers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityAppellate ProcedureMeritorious DefenseFailure to AppearJudicial DiscretionBurden of ProofAffidavit Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2005

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Franey Muha Alliant Insurance Services

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company sued Franey Muha Alliant Insurance Services and related entities, an insurance agent, alleging negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of good faith and fair dealing. Lumbermens sought indemnity for losses under a reinsurance contract with Hanover, for which Franey acted as an intermediary. Lumbermens had rejected an Allegheny Bond presented by Franey, but Hanover subsequently issued it, leading to Lumbermens' liability under the existing reinsurance treaty. The court denied Lumbermens' motion for partial summary judgment, finding Franey was not its express agent for the Allegheny Bond. It dismissed Lumbermens' breach of contract claim but allowed its negligence and fiduciary duty claims to proceed, as genuine issues of material fact remained regarding Franey's duties and knowledge.

agency agreementreinsurance treatysummary judgmentbreach of contractfiduciary dutynegligenceinsurance agentinsurance brokerquota-sharesurety bonds
References
33
Case No. 04-08-00070-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2008

the Connecticut Indemnity Company v. Latietta J. Cay

Latietta Cay, injured on the job at Normandy Terrace Nursing Home, filed a workers' compensation claim which her employer's insurer, Connecticut Indemnity Company, contested. After an adverse decision by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel, Cay sought judicial review. The trial court granted Cay’s motions for summary judgment, determining Connecticut Indemnity waived its right to dispute compensability and that Cay had a disability. Connecticut Indemnity appealed, arguing the trial court should have stayed proceedings pending a Texas Supreme Court decision in another case (*Mitchell*) and erred in granting summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed, stating the trial court was not obligated to await the *Mitchell* decision and that Connecticut Indemnity failed to challenge all grounds for summary judgment.

Workers' CompensationWaiverCompensabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeInsurance ClaimDisabilityEmployer LiabilityJudicial Precedent
References
6
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 1,686 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