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

Pelligrino v. Universal Maritime Service Co.

This maritime personal injury case involves plaintiff Dennis Pelligrino, a marine carpenter, who was injured after falling from grease-coated heavy machinery he was securing on a vessel. He sued Universal Maritime Service Company, Inc., the stevedoring company, and Waterman Steamship Corporation, the vessel owner. The court denied Universal's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved issues of fact regarding its alleged negligence in handling the cargo and failing to ensure safety. Conversely, Waterman's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, as the court found no evidence that the vessel owner breached its duties to longshoremen or actively participated in the cargo operations. Consequently, the complaint against Waterman was dismissed, while the action against Universal was severed.

Maritime personal injuryLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActStevedoring negligenceVessel owner dutiesSummary judgmentCargo securingHazardous conditionsCosmolineNegligenceShipowner liability
References
8
Case No. 01-15-01006-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2015

Professional Advantage Software Solutions, Inc. v. West Gulf Maritime Asociation Inc.

West Gulf Maritime Association (appellee) filed a response opposing Professional Advantage Software Solutions, Inc.'s (appellant) Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief. The appellant sought to halt an upcoming trial to appeal the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The appellee contends that the appellant waived its right to arbitrate through extensive participation in the litigation process over three years, including numerous motions, discovery, and mediation. The appellee claims significant prejudice due to the appellant's delay and alleged manipulation of arbitral rights. Therefore, West Gulf Maritime Association requests the court to deny the appellant's motion for temporary relief and allow the case to proceed to trial.

Arbitration WaiverEmergency MotionTemporary ReliefSoftware DisputeMaritime IndustryContract LawSummary Judgment MotionEconomic Loss RuleDTPA ExemptionBreach of Warranty
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2008

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System

Appellants Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. appealed summary judgments in favor of Christus Spohn Health System regarding medical expenses for Judy Ann Lanado, a seaman who suffered severe brain damage. Christus sought payment based on a sworn account, a guarantee, and maritime maintenance and cure. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Christus's counterclaim, finding an ineffective sworn denial and Christus's lack of standing for the guarantee. It also found a material fact issue regarding the reasonableness of medical charges under maintenance and cure. The court affirmed the denial of equitable subrogation to appellants but remanded for a determination of Christus's potential negligence affecting the medical bill.

Maritime LawSummary JudgmentMaintenance and CureEquitable SubrogationSworn AccountDue ProcessAlien CrewmanMedical ExpensesTexas LawAppellate Procedure
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. United States

Plaintiff Sally Robinson, representing her deceased husband Edward Robinson's estate, sued asbestos manufacturers, including Celotex Corporation, for wrongful death due to asbestos exposure on merchant ships. Defendant Celotex moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the claims were non-maritime. The court examined prior Second Circuit rulings, particularly Keene Corp. v. United States, which denied admiralty jurisdiction for land-based asbestos exposure, and Lingo v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., which extended this to seamen if the product wasn't specifically maritime. However, the court found that the Supreme Court's East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. decision, which incorporated products liability into general maritime law for torts on the high seas, altered the landscape. While Keene focused on whether the product was 'specifically designed for maritime use,' East River suggested a different standard for torts occurring on the high seas involving maritime commerce. The court concluded that East River precluded an asbestos manufacturer from arguing that because asbestos used on shipboard was not specifically designed for maritime use, a seaman injured by the asbestos on the high seas cannot invoke admiralty jurisdiction. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied.

Admiralty jurisdictionAsbestos exposureWrongful deathMaritime lawProducts liabilitySeamenFederal jurisdictionTort claimsSubject matter jurisdictionShipboard injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Guerrant

This memorandum and opinion addresses a case where a plaintiff's forklift was dropped into the Galveston Yacht Basin due to a crane boom collapse, leading to an admiralty action. The central issue is whether admiralty tort jurisdiction can be based solely on the locality of the tort or if a substantive maritime connection is required. The court dismisses the action, finding no connection between the incident and maritime commerce or navigation, thus ruling that locality alone is insufficient to establish admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. It emphasizes that a maritime connection is crucial for jurisdiction to align with the statute's purpose of uniformity in maritime law, aiming to simplify jurisdictional issues and avoid fragmented litigation.

Admiralty lawMaritime tortJurisdictionLocality testMaritime connection testFederal courtsStatutory constructionJudicial administrationCrane accidentForklift accident
References
27
Case No. 549 F.Supp. 1215
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines

Plaintiff Nathaniel Cruz sought to reinstate his personal injury action against the defendant, Maritime Co. of Philippines, after it was previously dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens. The condition for reinstatement was a showing that jurisdiction could not be asserted over the defendant in an appropriate Philippine forum. Plaintiff had filed suit in the Philippines but subsequently procured its dismissal without prejudice. The court found that plaintiff's dismissal of his own Philippine suit undermined his claim of impossible jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court identified two appropriate Philippine forums (Regional Trial Court and POEA) that remained available, with the defendant willing to waive jurisdictional defenses. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for reinstatement in the U.S. court was denied, as it appeared to be a tactic to force U.S. jurisdiction.

Forum Non ConveniensReinstatement of ActionPersonal InjuryMaritime LawPhilippine JurisdictionPOEA AuthorityDismissal Without PrejudiceEmployer NegligenceDamages ClaimsChoice of Forum
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Villar v. Crowley Maritime Corp.

This case involves the death of Renerio Z. Villar, a Philippine citizen, who drowned during his employment. His widow and children, also Philippine citizens, filed a third lawsuit against Crowley Maritime Corporation (CMC) and other codefendants, which was removed from Texas state court to a federal district court in Texas. The court addressed three motions: the Codefendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, CMC's motion to dismiss based on res judicata and forum non conveniens, and Plaintiffs' motion to remand. The court granted the Codefendants' motion to dismiss, finding no personal jurisdiction, and consequently denied Plaintiffs' motion to remand as moot. Additionally, the court granted CMC's motion to dismiss, citing a previous res judicata ruling from a California federal court and, alternatively, federal forum non conveniens principles. Plaintiffs were enjoined from initiating further lawsuits in any U.S. state or federal court regarding this matter, and their counsel was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for advancing unreasonable arguments and relying on misrepresentations.

Personal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensRes JudicataFraudulent JoinderAlter Ego DoctrineDiversity JurisdictionFederal ProcedureMaritime LawRule 11 SanctionsInjunction
References
15
Case No. 13-06-471-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2008

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial

This case involves an appeal from summary judgments. Appellants (Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C., collectively "Texas Treasure") contested the trial court's decision in favor of appellee (Christus Spohn Health System d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial, "Christus"). The dispute arose from medical expenses incurred by a seaman, Judy Ann Lanado, employed by Texas Treasure, who suffered severe brain damage after surgery at Christus. Texas Treasure sought to avoid liability for the entire hospital bill and claimed equitable subrogation. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Texas Treasure's motion for summary judgment on its plea in intervention but reversed the granting of Christus's motions for summary judgment on its counterclaim and Texas Treasure's plea in intervention, remanding for further proceedings to determine negligence and attributable expenses.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSworn AccountVerified DenialDue ProcessEquitable SubrogationMaintenance and CureMaritime LawAlien CrewmanHospital Expenses
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Port of Houston Authority v. Guillory

John O. Guillory, a longshoreman, suffered personal injuries while working for Dixie Stevedores, Inc. on property owned by the Port of Houston Authority, using Port Authority equipment. He sued the Port Authority under state and federal maritime laws, leading to a jury verdict finding both the Port Authority and Dixie negligent, with a significant damages award including exemplary damages. On appeal, the court examined the interplay between the Texas Tort Claims Act, which caps damages at $100,000 and disallows exemplary damages for governmental entities, and federal maritime law. The appellate court determined that these statutory limitations from the Texas Tort Claims Act apply to admiralty claims when the state has waived immunity, thereby reducing Guillory's award to $100,000. Furthermore, the court reversed the Port Authority's right of contribution against Dixie, ruling that Dixie, as Guillory's employer who paid workers' compensation benefits, was immune from further suit.

Workers' CompensationTexas Tort Claims ActLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActFederal Maritime LawSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityDamages LimitationExemplary DamagesContribution ClaimNegligence
References
23
Case No. 09-3356
Regular Panel Decision

Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.)

This Revised Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding initiated by Placid Oil Company, a reorganized debtor from a 1980s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Placid sought a determination that post-confirmation tort claims, filed by the Williams Defendants (Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants) in Louisiana state court for asbestos exposure, were discharged by Placid's 1988 bankruptcy confirmation order. The claims arose from the death of Mrs. Myra Williams due to mesothelioma, allegedly caused by indirect asbestos exposure from her husband's work clothes while he was employed by Placid at its Black Lake Facility pre-confirmation. Applying the 'pre-petition relationship test,' the bankruptcy court found that Mrs. Williams' exposure constituted a pre-petition 'claim' and that the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants were 'unknown creditors.' Concluding that constructive notice via newspaper publication was sufficient for these unknown creditors and that appointing a future claims representative was not warranted, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Placid, discharging the tort claims.

Bankruptcy DischargeAsbestos ExposurePost-Confirmation ClaimsUnknown CreditorsDue Process NoticeSummary JudgmentPre-petition Relationship TestMesotheliomaTort LiabilityChapter 11 Reorganization
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,142 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