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. 14-09-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Weingarten Realty Management Company and Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal from a trial court's summary judgment in an insurance-coverage dispute. Appellants Weingarten Realty Management Company and Scottsdale Insurance Company sought to compel appellee Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company to defend Weingarten Management in an underlying lawsuit where it was mistakenly identified as a lessor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, allowing the consideration of extrinsic evidence as a narrow exception to the eight-corners rule. This exception applies when an insurer proves, using extrinsic evidence, that the party seeking defense is a stranger to the policy and could not be entitled to coverage under any circumstances, without touching on the merits of the underlying claim. The court concluded that Weingarten Management was not an actual lessor and therefore not an insured under Liberty Mutual's policy.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendEight-Corners Rule ExceptionExtrinsic EvidenceSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Policy InterpretationLessor StatusContractual DisputesTexas Civil Procedure
References
30
Case No. 14-07-01006-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2009

Mid-Continent Casulty Company v. Global Enercom Management, Inc

This case involves an appeal regarding liability insurance coverage. Mid-Continent Casualty Company issued Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) and Commercial Auto Policies (CAP) to Allstates Construction Company. Allstates employees were injured or killed when a rope, connected to a pick-up truck for power, broke during a cellular tower maintenance job for Global Enercom Management, Inc. The central dispute on appeal was whether the CGL policy's "Exclusion g," which pertains to injuries arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, precluded coverage for the incident. The majority found coverage, concluding the truck merely provided power and a defective rope caused the deaths. A dissenting opinion argued that the majority misapplied causation analysis, asserting that the truck's operation was a direct cause, triggering the exclusion. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Liability InsuranceCommercial General LiabilityCommercial Auto PolicyInsurance ExclusionCausation AnalysisMotor Vehicle UseSummary Judgment AppealAppellate Court DecisionTexas Insurance LawWorkers' Compensation
References
8
Case No. 13-23-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

Esmeralda Gonzalez v. CS Auto, LTD and Loco Management Company, L.L.C.

Esmeralda Gonzalez sued CS Auto, LTD and LoCo Management Company, L.L.C. (South Texas Buick GMC) for the wrongful death of Leonzo Gonzalez, who contracted COVID-19 while employed by them. Esmeralda alleged premises liability, negligent conduct, general negligence, negligence per se, and wrongful death, claiming the company failed to implement safety protocols during the pandemic. The trial court dismissed her claims under the Texas Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA), finding her expert report insufficient to establish causation. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the expert report provided only speculative conclusions and failed to offer a factual and scientific basis for the assertion that the employer's actions caused Leonzo's COVID-19 infection and death, thus not satisfying the statutory requirements.

Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA)COVID-19 LiabilityWrongful DeathExpert Report SufficiencyCausation in LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeEmployer NegligenceWorkplace ExposureMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. 14-08-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2008

in Re TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., TCW Asset Management Company, and Trust Company of the West

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., TCW Asset Management Company, and Trust Company of the West (Relators) against British American Offshore Limited (BAOL). Relators sought to compel the district court judge to vacate an order denying their motion to dismiss, which was based on a forum-selection clause. The underlying dispute involved BAOL's tort claims against Relators, who were not signatories to the original rig contracts but sought to enforce the clause. The appellate court denied the petition, ruling that the Relators had waived their argument regarding the scope of the forum-selection clause by failing to adequately present it in their initial petition.

MandamusForum Selection ClauseWaiverAppellate ProcedureTexas LawTort ClaimsMotion to DismissReal Party in InterestContract DisputeJurisdiction
References
19
Case No. W2010-01496-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2011

Charles Roach and Joyce Roach v. Dixie Gas Company Ben Thomas Williams, Jr., Individually and as Owner and Manager of Dixie Gas Company Semstream, L.P. Santie Wholesale Oil Company, A Division of Blue Rhino Reliable Propane and John Does 1 through 10

Charles and Joyce Roach sued Dixie Gas Company and Benjamin Thomas Williams, Jr. for damages resulting from a propane explosion. The Roaches claimed numerous physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD, depression, hearing loss, and a speech disorder. While defendants admitted liability for property damage, they disputed causation for personal injuries, arguing the Roaches were not at the scene during the explosion. After a jury trial awarded zero damages, the Roaches appealed, challenging the admissibility of medical examinations, expert testimony, and deposition testimony, and the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the Rule 35 examinations or the admissibility of expert testimony, and concluded that material evidence supported the jury's verdict of zero damages.

Propane ExplosionPersonal InjuryEmotional DistressPTSDDepressionHearing LossSpeech DisorderMedical Expert TestimonyRule 35 ExaminationJury Verdict
References
38
Case No. 05-16-00875-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2018

Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company, America First Insurance Company, the Netherlands Insurance Company, and America First Lloyds Insurance Company A.K.A. America First Insurance Company v. GLS Masonry, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by several insurance companies (Appellants) against GLS Masonry, Inc. (Appellee) after a take-nothing judgment in their suit to collect unpaid insurance premiums. The dispute centered on whether GLS's masonry workers were independent contractors or employees for premium calculation purposes, particularly for workers' compensation and general liability policies. The Appellants argued that GLS owed additional premiums due to audits reclassifying workers as employees and based on a lack of liability insurance for subcontractors. The trial court sided with GLS, finding that the insurance companies failed to establish the applicability of certain labor code provisions and did not sufficiently prove that GLS owed additional premiums, especially considering evidence that the workers were independent contractors and payments were made on policies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Insurance DisputeUnpaid PremiumsCommercial General LiabilityPremium AuditIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee ClassificationBreach of ContractTexas Appellate LawFactual Sufficiency ReviewSworn Account Claim
References
12
Case No. 01-19-00852-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2021

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

This case involves two related appeals concerning insurance coverage for bodily injury claims against Exxon Mobil Corporation by its contractor's employees, Kevin Roberts and Arturo Munoz. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. challenged a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Exxon and Starr Indemnity and Liability Insurance Company, arguing its umbrella policy did not provide coverage beyond its CGL policy, as dictated by the Exxon-Savage Contract. Exxon also challenged a summary judgment favoring Starr. The appeals court reversed the judgment against National Union, finding that 'Commercial General Liability insurance' in the contract referred only to primary coverage, not umbrella or excess policies. Consequently, Exxon was not entitled to coverage under National Union's umbrella policy. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Starr, as its bumbershoot policy was also considered an umbrella policy. The case was remanded for reconsideration of attorney's fees and costs.

Insurance Policy InterpretationCommercial General LiabilityUmbrella Liability InsuranceExcess Liability InsuranceAdditional Insured EndorsementSummary Judgment ReviewBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury Claims
References
34
Case No. 13-15-00506-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2015

Scripps NP Operating, LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company, Successor in Interest to Scripps Texas Newspapers, LP D/B/A Corpus Christi Caller-Times and the E.W. Scripps Company v. Terry Carter

This case is an interlocutory appeal of a denied motion for summary judgment in a libel lawsuit. Appellants Scripps NP Operating, LLC, and The E.W. Scripps Company are being sued by Appellee Terry Carter, former president and CEO of the Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce, over 25 articles published in 2008. The articles reported on alleged financial and management irregularities during Carter's tenure, including shifted funds and deferred salary, which led to a stated profit instead of a deficit. Appellants argue that the articles were not defamatory, were substantially true, constituted non-actionable opinion, or were privileged fair reports of judicial proceedings and public meetings, and were published without negligence or actual malice.

LibelDefamationAppellate LawSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentMedia LawJournalism StandardsFinancial IrregularitiesChamber of CommerceEmployment Dispute
References
50
Case No. 04-24-00606-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2025

Michael Shalit D/B/A Kimberly Investment Company, Lynzara-Austin Real Estate Management, LLC, as General Partner of Kendall County Development Company, L.P., and as General Partner of Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Robyn Real Estate Investments, L.P., Robyn Utility Investments, L.P., and Robyn Utility Investments Management, LLC v. Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Kendall County Development Company, L.P., Kendall County Utility Company, Inc., Tapatio Springs Utility Holdings, L.P., and Tapatio Springs Hospitality Holdings, L.P.

This memorandum opinion addresses an appeal from a summary judgment granted by the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas. Appellants, collectively known as the Shalit Entities, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Appellees, the Tapatio Entities, which barred the Shalit Entities' counter-claims due to the four-year statute of limitations. The Shalit Entities' claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel, arose from a soured business partnership. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the Shalit Entities failed to sufficiently plead acknowledgment of debt to defeat the limitations defense. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that special exceptions were a prerequisite to summary judgment on limitations grounds and affirmed the severance of claims.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractStatutory FraudDeclaratory ReliefBusiness Partnership DisputeReal Estate VentureAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. 10-10-00171-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2012

Mary Frances Haferkamp v. SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company, LP, Mariner Healthcare Management Company, SSC Pasadena Operating Company, LP, LLC, Savanseniorcare, LLC, Savaseniorcare Administrative Services, LLC

Mary Frances Haferkamp appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company LP and other entities. Haferkamp sued for negligence due to an alleged workplace injury, claiming appellees were nonsubscribers to worker’s compensation insurance and failed to provide a safe workplace and adequate tools. Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of proximate cause and no breach of duty. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Haferkamp's deposition testimony conclusively established that the appellees' alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of her injury, as the patient's sudden act was unpreventable and she would not have used a gait belt even if available.

Negligence ClaimWorkplace InjurySummary Judgment AppealProximate CauseTexas Labor CodeNonsubscriber EmployerEmployer Duty of CareAppellate ReviewDeposition TestimonyGait Belt
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 17,541 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