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. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mapp v. Maryland Casualty Co.

This is a workers’ compensation case where the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance carrier, Maryland Casualty. The court of appeals affirmed this decision. However, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the cause to the trial court. The court held that a fact question was presented regarding whether Clara Mapp was acting within the course and scope of her employment at the time of her injury, disagreeing as a matter of law with the lower courts. This decision was based on conflicts with previous rulings, leading to a reversal and remand without oral argument.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentReversalRemandAppellate ProcedureFact QuestionTexas LawInsurance Carrier
References
4
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alibrandi Building Systems, Inc. v. Wm. C. Pahl Construction Co.

This case concerns an appeal stemming from a Lien Law article 3-A lien foreclosure action. Defendants, comprised of various Iron Workers' Funds and Union entities, brought cross-claims against codefendants Wm. C. Pahl Construction Co., Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, and A & J Steel Erectors, seeking unpaid fringe benefits and union dues. Pahl and Fidelity appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss these cross-claims. The appellate court modified the order, striking demands for liquidated damages across all cross-claims and specific interest demands in one, but otherwise affirmed, ruling that ERISA did not preempt these remedial claims. The decision clarified that while principal sums and interest were recoverable under various lien and finance laws, liquidated damages were not.

Lien LawERISAState Finance LawPublic ImprovementMechanics LiensUnpaid BenefitsUnion DuesLiquidated DamagesContract ActionPayment Bond
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chemung Canal Trust Co. ex rel. Fairway Spring Co. v. Sovran Bank/Maryland

The Chemung Canal Trust Company and beneficiaries sued Sovran Bank/Maryland under ERISA, alleging breach of fiduciary duties related to pension plan management. Sovran, a former trustee, was accused of failing to rectify prior trustee Glenn Dawson's wrongful acts and making two imprudent investments. Sovran then filed a third-party complaint against Fairway Spring Co., the employer, for indemnity/contribution, and a counterclaim against Chemung for failing to adequately pursue claims. The court dismissed Sovran's counterclaim against Chemung due to lack of standing as a former fiduciary. Furthermore, the court dismissed Sovran's claims for contribution and indemnity against Chemung and Fairway, ruling that ERISA does not explicitly or implicitly provide for such actions, nor can they be created under federal common law.

ERISAFiduciary DutyPension PlanTrustee LiabilityIndemnityContributionStanding to SueFederal Common LawBreach of Fiduciary DutyCo-fiduciary Liability
References
13
Case No. 03-97-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

A. James Lynn v. Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas

A. James Lynn appealed from a trial court judgment that affirmed an order by the Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas. The Board found that Lynn did not possess the good moral character required for admission to the Bar of Texas, citing his engagement in the unauthorized practice of law, a public reprimand from the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, and violations of HUD regulations. The Travis County District Court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, Lynn raised ten issues, including claims regarding the lack of substantial evidence, rational connection of character traits, constitutionality of the unauthorized practice of law statute, res judicata, right to a jury trial, and due process. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, overruled all of Lynn's issues, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and that there was a clear and rational connection between Lynn's character traits and his fitness to practice law. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Bar AdmissionMoral CharacterUnauthorized Practice of LawProfessional MisconductCertified Public AccountantHUD RegulationsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessRes Judicata
References
18
Case No. 15-24-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2024

Randall Law v. Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers' Compensation Subsequent Injury Fund, Jeff Nelson, Kara MacE, and Blaise Gerstenlauer

Appellant Randal Law, a catastrophically injured worker receiving lifetime income benefits from the Subsequent Injury Fund, appeals a decision from the 353rd Civil District Court of Travis County, Texas. The District Court granted the defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction, dismissing Law's claims without prejudice. Law argues that manager Blaise Gerstenlauer acted with "Severe Ultra Vires conduct" by unilaterally interrupting his lifetime income benefits, which are protected by the Texas Labor Code from legal process and are paid until the employee's death. Law contends that this ultra vires act bypasses sovereign immunity, allowing his case to proceed in the Texas Judicial Review System. The brief requests the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to reverse the lower court's order and grant jurisdiction to Law.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsSubsequent Injury FundUltra Vires ActSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAppellate CourtInjunctive ReliefCatastrophic InjuryTexas Labor Code
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 16,941 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