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. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. 01-08-00812-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2010

Apache Industrial Painting v. Gulf Copper & Manufacturing Corporation

This case involves an appeal by Apache Industrial Painting (Apache) against Gulf Copper & Manufacturing Corporation (Gulf) regarding indemnity claims. Both companies were subcontractors for Nabors Drilling USA (Nabors) on a drilling rig. The dispute arose from a personal injury lawsuit filed by an Apache employee against Nabors and Gulf, leading to cross-claims for indemnity based on Master Service Agreements (MSAs) with Nabors. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Gulf and Nabors against Apache. Apache appealed, and after settling with Nabors, the appeal focused solely on Gulf. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Gulf, holding that Gulf was not a member of the 'Nabors Group' under the Apache/Nabors MSA, thus Apache owed no indemnity to Gulf. Concurrently, the court affirmed the denial of Apache's motion for summary judgment against Gulf, concluding that Apache was also not an 'invitee' under the Gulf/Nabors MSA, and therefore not entitled to indemnity from Gulf. Ultimately, neither Apache nor Gulf was found entitled to contractual indemnity from the other.

IndemnitySubcontractorMaster Service AgreementSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationBreach of ContractAdditional InsuredNegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
17
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lozano v. H.D. Industries, Inc.

Pablo A. Lozano, a City of El Paso employee, sued H.D. Industries, Inc., the manufacturer of a "Pro-Patch Pothole Patcher," for severe leg injuries sustained while cleaning hardened sand from the machine's bind. Lozano's claims included products liability in negligence and strict liability, alleging design and marketing defects due to a lack of safety mechanisms and inadequate warnings. The jury found no defect in design or marketing and no negligence by H.D. Industries, instead assigning 25% responsibility to Lozano and 75% to the City of El Paso. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict, concluding that the inclusion of the City in the jury charge was harmless error and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectMarketing DefectWarning LabelsJury Charge ErrorComparative ResponsibilityWorkers CompensationAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Industries, Inc. v. Lucas

This appeal concerns personal injuries sustained by Randall Wade Lucas on a construction site when a pre-fabricated concrete beam fell, crushing his leg. The beam, manufactured by TXI Structural Products (a subsidiary of Texas Industries, Inc. - TXI), had incorrect 1" inserts instead of the specified 1¼". Lucas, an employee of Precast Erectors, Inc., was injured when Precast employees attempted to unload the beam using incompatible 1" bolts and 1¼" bell rings. Lucas sued TXI and Everman Corporation, who had contracted with TXI to manufacture the beams. The trial court initially awarded Lucas over $1.9 million, apportioning fault 85% to TXI and 15% to Everman. On appeal, the court reversed and rendered the judgment as to Everman, finding no sufficient evidence that Everman's advice to Precast constituted negligence, and noting that the issue of Everman's negligence for failing to inspect the beam after delivery was waived. As to TXI, the court affirmed the jury's finding that TXI Structural Products was the alter ego of TXI, making TXI liable for its subsidiary's negligence in supplying the defective beam and failing to warn. The court also affirmed TXI's proximate cause. However, the appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an expert witness to testify on future earning capacity without proper prior disclosure. Consequently, the judgment against TXI was affirmed on the condition that Lucas file a remittitur of $344,316.60 from the damages awarded for future earning capacity. After the remittitur was filed, the judgment as to TXI was affirmed as modified.

Alter Ego DoctrineCorporate Veil PiercingNegligence LiabilityProximate CauseForeseeabilityConstruction Site SafetyProduct DefectComparative Negligence Act (Texas)Worker's Compensation ImmunityExpert Witness Testimony
References
29
Case No. 01-09-00399-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2010

Toyota Industrial Equipment Mfg., Inc. v. Carruth-Doggett, Inc. D/B/A ToyotaLift of Houston

This case involves an appeal by Toyota Industrial Equipment Mfg., Inc. (TIEM) against a summary judgment granting indemnity to Carruth-Doggett, Inc., d/b/a ToyotaLift of Houston (ToyotaLift). The underlying dispute originated from a products liability suit where a worker, Shahzah Sunesara, was injured by a forklift manufactured by TIEM and leased by ToyotaLift. Sunesara's claims included strict products liability and negligence against TIEM, and negligence against ToyotaLift. Although Sunesara later removed direct products liability claims against ToyotaLift, the court found that TIEM still had a duty to indemnify ToyotaLift for its defense costs, including attorney's fees, under Chapter 82 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The decision was based on the interpretation that a manufacturer's duty to indemnify is triggered when its product is alleged to be defective in a plaintiff's petition, encompassing other properly joined theories of liability, provided the seller is not found independently liable. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Products LiabilityIndemnity ClaimSummary JudgmentTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 82Forklift AccidentNegligence ActionManufacturer LiabilitySeller IndemnificationAppellate Court DecisionAttorney's Fees
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Bush Industries, Inc.

This case involves a Chapter 11 reorganization plan for Bush Industries, Inc., a furniture manufacturer. The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders objected to the plan, arguing it violated the absolute priority rule, proposed improper general releases, and lacked good faith due to a "golden parachute" for the principal officer, Paul S. Bush. Bankruptcy Judge Carl L. Bucki determined that the debtor's enterprise value did not exceed outstanding claims, thus upholding the absolute priority rule regarding pre-petition stock cancellation. However, the court found that the renegotiated employment contract for Paul Bush and the proposed releases for corporate management constituted a breach of fiduciary duty by officers and directors, violating the good faith requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3). Consequently, the court denied confirmation of the plan in its present form, requiring the debtor to demonstrate good faith in a revised plan, possibly by distributing the premium secured by management to all shareholders.

Chapter 11 BankruptcyPlan of ReorganizationAbsolute Priority RuleFiduciary DutyCorporate GovernanceGolden ParachuteValuation MethodologiesDiscounted Cash Flow AnalysisComparable Companies AnalysisExit Multiple
References
11
Case No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2014

Ricardo Torres v. Precision Industries, P.I., d/b/a Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick and Vicki Hedrick

Ricardo Torres, an undocumented worker, appealed the Hardeman County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge claim against Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick, and Vicki Hedrick. Torres alleged he was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim for a back injury sustained on the job. The trial court had ruled that an unauthorized alien lacked standing to bring such a claim as they were incapable of legal employment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that undocumented employees do have standing to pursue retaliatory discharge claims in Tennessee, as the Workers' Compensation Act broadly defines 'employee' to include those lawfully or unlawfully employed. The court reasoned that retaliatory discharge actions protect employees' rights to file workers' compensation claims and preventing such claims by unauthorized aliens would create an incentive for employers to hire illegal workers and deny them benefits without consequence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUndocumented WorkerImmigration StatusSummary Judgment ReversalEmployee StandingEmployment LawTennessee Appellate CourtPublic Policy ExceptionEmployer Retaliation
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzales v. Armac Industries, Ltd.

This case addresses a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: whether a defendant manufacturer's (Armac Industries, Ltd.) pretrial agreement with an injured plaintiff, admitting 2% liability and limiting enforcement of judgment, constitutes a 'release from liability' under General Obligations Law § 15-108 (c). The plaintiff was injured while employed by General Thermoforming Corporation (GTC), and Armac initiated a third-party action against GTC for contribution and indemnification. The Court held that the agreement did constitute a 'release from liability,' thereby forfeiting Armac's right to contribution from GTC. The decision emphasizes that such agreements undermine the quid pro quo system of § 15-108 and the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, allowing indirect recovery from employers beyond statutory benefits.

Release from LiabilityGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108Workers' Compensation LawContributionPretrial AgreementTort LawEmployer ImmunityStatutory InterpretationThird-Party ActionExclusive Remedy
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 5,036 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