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. No. 01-06-00237-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Maryland Casualty Co. v. American Home Assurance Co.

This opinion on rehearing addresses an appeal by Maryland Casualty Company (Maryland) against American Home Assurance Company (American) and Illinois National Insurance Company (Illinois), concerning an insurance coverage dispute. Maryland challenges a summary judgment that found National Equipment Services, Inc. (NES), an additional insured under Maryland's policy, was entitled to coverage. The underlying dispute involved the settlement of a lawsuit arising from a trench collapse that killed three workers, with American and Illinois acting as subrogees for NES after settling the claims. Maryland argued that NES, and subsequently its subrogees, failed to comply with critical policy provisions, specifically timely notice of the claim and obtaining consent before settlement, thus prejudicing Maryland's ability to defend. The appellate court, guided by *National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Crocker*, reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that Maryland was prejudiced as a matter of law due to the wholly lacking notice from NES, which prevented Maryland from exercising its right to defend or consent to the settlement. As a result, the court rendered judgment that American and Illinois take nothing on their claims against Maryland.

Insurance CoverageSubrogation ClaimSummary JudgmentAdditional Insured StatusNotice RequirementsConsent-to-Settle ClausePrejudice DefenseDuty to DefendAppellate DecisionCommercial General Liability
References
21
Case No. 09-13-00353-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2015

Hoa Dao v. Maryland Casualty Company and Craig Raus

Hoa Dao (and Keystone Management) appealed a trial court's order imposing "death-penalty" sanctions for discovery abuse against Maryland Casualty Company (MCC) and Craig Raus, which struck their pleadings and dismissed their lawsuit. Dao had sued MCC and Raus for unfair settlement practices, fraud, and breach of contract related to Hurricane Ike damages. Despite multiple discovery requests and court orders, Dao allegedly failed to produce all responsive documents. The Court of Appeals reversed the sanctions, ruling they were excessive because lesser sanctions were not tested, and there was no evidence of destroyed or tampered evidence to justify a presumption that Dao's claims lacked merit. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Discovery SanctionsDeath-Penalty SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionProcedural ErrorReversalRemandInsurance LitigationHurricane IkeDocument ProductionTexas Court of Appeals
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Drummond

J. C. Drummond, an employee, was injured on August 2, 1935, while working for A. H. Beck Foundation Company under a PWA contract. He sought workers' compensation from Maryland Casualty Company, challenging his classification as an unskilled laborer and the resulting weekly wage calculation. After the Industrial Accident Board's award was set aside, a jury found a fair weekly wage of $30, leading to a judgment for Drummond. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the average weekly wage should be based on the actual agreed-upon wage of 40 cents per hour for 30 hours per week under the PWA contract, rather than a higher, hypothetical wage. The case was remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationWage CalculationGovernment ContractPWA ProjectEmployee ClassificationAppellate ReviewRemandIndustrial Accident BoardTexas Civil StatutesInsurance Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Garrett

The Maryland Casualty Company, insurer for Tidal Oil Company, sought to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award of $5,776.88 granted to employee J. I. Garrett in Crane County. Garrett, who was injured on April 22, 1928, claimed total and permanent disability due to inhaling poisonous gas that allegedly activated a dormant tubercular condition during his employment. A jury found in Garrett's favor, asserting his injuries were permanent and total, and a lump sum payment was justified, also dismissing claims of illegal Sunday employment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the decision, citing insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the gas inhalation specifically excited a latent tubercular condition, which was central to Garrett's claim for compensation.

Workers' CompensationOccupational InjuryTuberculosisGas InhalationLatent ConditionPermanent DisabilityLump Sum AwardIndustrial Accident BoardSunday Work LawsCriminal Law Violation
References
2
Case No. 04-25-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company v. Javier A. Libson, Nosbil, Inc., Jose Luis Ramirez, Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company

Appellants Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company appealed a no-evidence summary judgment. Cantu's claims of negligence per se, negligent hiring, training, retention, and negligent entrustment were affirmed. However, the summary judgment for Cantu's ordinary negligence claims was reversed and remanded. Additionally, the judgment favoring the insurance defendants (Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company) was also reversed, as their motion for summary judgment was not properly heard. The case involved a collision between Cantu and Jose Luis Ramirez, an employee of Nosbil, Inc., in foggy conditions, leading to Cantu suing for negligence and insurance claims.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseDuty of CareBreach of DutyCausationInsurance ClaimsVicarious Liability
References
36
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. 01-07-00711-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2009

Maryland Casualty Company v. American Home Assurance Company and Illinois National Insurance Company, as Subrogees of National Equipment Services, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding insurance coverage for a settlement in an underlying lawsuit. Maryland Casualty Company, the appellant, challenged a summary judgment that found its policy covered National Equipment Services, Inc. (NES) as an additional insured. NES's primary insurers, American Home Assurance Company and Illinois National Insurance Company, settled the original lawsuit on NES's behalf and then sought subrogation from Maryland. The core dispute was whether NES's failure to provide timely notice of the claim and obtain consent for settlement prejudiced Maryland, thereby precluding coverage. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the appellate court concluded that the wholly lacking notice constituted prejudice as a matter of law, effectively depriving Maryland of its right to defend. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a decision that American and Illinois take nothing on their claims against Maryland.

Insurance LawSubrogationSummary JudgmentNotice ProvisionConsent-to-settle ClausePrejudice (Insurance)Additional InsuredCommercial General LiabilityAppellate ReviewPolicy Violations
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Company v. Theraco, Inc.

Continental Casualty Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America sued Theraco, Inc. for additional workers’ compensation premiums, disputing the classification of physical therapists as independent contractors. Theraco’s insurance contracts with CNA and Travelers included provisions for premiums based on employees or persons posing a risk of workers’ compensation liability. The Department of Commerce and Insurance and the trial court initially sided with Theraco, ruling the physical therapists were independent contractors and not liable for additional premiums. However, upon appeal, this Court affirmed the independent contractor status but reversed the decision regarding the "risk of loss" provision. The Court concluded that the insurers were exposed to the risk of defending potential lawsuits, even if only to litigate the therapists' employment status. Consequently, Theraco was found liable for retrospective premiums totaling $44,089 to CNA and $97,522 to Travelers.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsIndependent Contractor StatusEmployer-Employee RelationshipRisk of Loss ProvisionInsurance Contract InterpretationRetroactive Premium AssessmentPhysical TherapistsAppellate ReviewAdministrative Agency DecisionStatutory Employee
References
17
Case No. 05-95-01259-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1997

Lemke Concrete Construction v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, Union Mutual Insurance Company of Providence, Emcasco Insurance Company, Patterson, Lamberty, Stanford, Walls & Dwyer, P.C. and John R. Robinson

Lemke Concrete Construction appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Employers Mutual Casualty Company, Union Mutual Insurance Company of Providence, and Emcasco Insurance Company (carriers). Lemke alleged breach of contract, negligence, breach of good faith, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act and Texas Insurance Code, stemming from the carriers' handling of a workers' compensation claim and a subsequent retaliatory discharge suit filed by Lemke's employee, Jesus Gonzalez. The carriers had settled the workers' compensation claim but denied coverage for the wrongful discharge claim, leading Lemke to incur legal fees and a settlement. The trial court granted summary judgment for the carriers, concluding that the policies did not cover wrongful discharge claims and, thus, the carriers owed no duty to defend or settle such claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding that without coverage, Lemke's claims of bad faith and negligence were meritless, and estoppel could not create coverage.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingInsurance CoverageNegligenceTexas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection ActTexas Insurance CodeVicarious LiabilityRetaliatory Discharge
References
31
Case No. 03-03-00430-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2004

State of Texas v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and Colonial American Casualty and Surety Company

The State of Texas sued Fidelity (a surety) after a construction company defaulted on a contract with the Texas Department of Transportation. Fidelity counterclaimed for additional costs. The State filed a plea to the jurisdiction, citing sovereign immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court denied the State's plea. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the State waived sovereign immunity by initiating the lawsuit for germane counterclaims, and Fidelity was not statutorily required to exhaust administrative remedies because the contract for a research and technology center was not covered by the transportation code's definition of "highway projects."

Sovereign ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityGovernment ContractsPerformance BondSurety ClaimsCounterclaimsAdministrative RemediesStatutory InterpretationEjusdem GenerisJurisdiction
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 11,691 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