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. 08-10-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

State v. Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC

The State of Texas sued Cemex Construction Materials South, L.L.C. for conversion, breach of contract, and trespass to try title, asserting ownership of valuable building materials on four parcels of public school lands in El Paso County. The State claimed these mineral rights were reserved under the 1895 Land Sales and Mining Acts during original sales in 1900, 1906, and 1912. The trial court denied the State's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Cemex's motion. On appeal, the court reviewed the rulings de novo and found that the State unequivocally reserved mineral rights. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, granted the State's motion for partial summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mineral RightsPublic School LandsSummary JudgmentState of TexasConversion ClaimBreach of ContractMining Act of 1895Land Sales Act of 1895Real Property LawStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. 04-15-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2015

Rhino Contractors, LLC v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LP

Rhino Contractors, LLC, appeals a trial court's default judgment in favor of Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. Vulcan sued Rhino for breach of contract or on a sworn account, alleging Rhino failed to pay $454,846.76 for materials supplied for its construction business, plus 18% interest and attorney's fees. The default judgment included these amounts along with prejudgment interest and court costs. Rhino argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for new trial because it never received proper notice of the lawsuit, thus failing to file an answer. Rhino also asserts it has a meritorious defense, including claims of double billing and improper credits on invoices from Vulcan, and that granting a new trial would not prejudice Vulcan. Furthermore, Rhino contends the damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees awarded were unliquidated and not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence, as Vulcan's affidavit lacked an itemized account and its attorney's fee affidavit did not meet required evidentiary standards.

Default JudgmentBreach of ContractSworn AccountMotion for New TrialService of ProcessCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseDamagesPrejudgment InterestAttorney's Fees
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

Plaintiff, a subcontractor for Massa Construction, Inc., initiated an action against defendant surety to secure payment on a labor and materials bond after Massa ceased payments due to alleged breaches by plaintiff. Defendant denied plaintiff's claim, asserting plaintiff materially breached its subcontract by failing to make pension contributions, provide releases, and obtain a separate payment bond. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of compliance and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a material breach. The court noted that alleged non-payments to suppliers only affected the subcontract price, not Massa's obligation to continue performance, and found no requirement for plaintiff to pay pension contributions to the Iron Workers District Council or obtain a separate payment bond from glaziers unions.

SubcontractorSurety BondPublic Improvement ProjectLabor and Materials BondPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractPension ContributionsPayment ObligationsGlaziers Unions
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anjay Corp. v. Those Certain Underwriters

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance claim denied by defendant insurers to plaintiff jewelry manufacturers. The plaintiffs experienced a significant loss due to an explosion and fire at their facility in Mexico. The defendants denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiffs had breached a "Video Tape Warranty" in their jewelers’ block insurance policy by failing to preserve relevant videotapes. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that a breach of warranty does not negate recovery under an insurance contract unless it materially increases the risk of loss, which is typically a factual question for a jury. The court found the defendants' arguments regarding the materiality of the breach unconvincing and subsequently reinstated the plaintiffs' complaint.

Insurance LawBreach of WarrantySummary JudgmentVideo Tape WarrantyMateriality of BreachRisk of LossJewelers' Block PolicyAppellate ReviewReversalComplaint Reinstatement
References
4
Case No. 03-04-00485-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2008

MHI Partnership, Ltd. v. DH Real Estate Investment Company D/B/A DH Investment Company

MHI Partnership, Ltd. appealed a trial court judgment concerning its breach-of-contract action against DH Real Estate Investment Company. The dispute arose from a real estate development contract where MHI terminated the agreement, alleging a material breach by DH for failing to provide required backup cost information three weeks before closing, despite a "time is of the essence" clause. The trial court denied MHI's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury found no material breach by DH, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found that MHI did not conclusively establish a material breach as a matter of law, noting that boilerplate "time is of the essence" clauses do not automatically make every deadline material, and considering factors such as DH's offers to cure and testimony from MHI's own executives regarding the deadlines' importance. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's finding that DH's conduct did not constitute a material breach justifying contract termination.

Contract LawReal EstateBreach of ContractTime is of the EssenceMaterial BreachDirected VerdictJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewContract TerminationProperty Development
References
26
Case No. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. 01-07-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

in Re Bison Building Materials, Ltd.

Bison Building Materials, Ltd., a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, established an employee injury plan with an arbitration clause. Employee Tracy Sambrano was injured, received benefits, but then sued Bison for negligence, despite signing a post-injury waiver. The trial court denied Bison's motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the court held that Sambrano had accepted the arbitration terms by continued employment and that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws that would prevent enforcement. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to compel arbitration, finding Bison had not waived its right, and dismissed Sambrano's interlocutory appeal.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas General Arbitration Act (TGAA)Workers' Compensation NonsubscriberEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanERISA PreemptionMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealWaiver of ArbitrationContract Defenses
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forrest Construction Co. v. Laughlin

This action involves claims arising from the construction of a residence in Williamson County for James and Debbie Laughlin by Forrest Construction Company, LLC. Forrest Construction filed a breach-of-contract action against Mr. Laughlin and a quantum meruit action against Mrs. Laughlin, claiming Mr. Laughlin breached the contract by failing to pay. The Laughlins counterclaimed for negligent construction, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court initially found Mr. Laughlin in material breach, but also awarded damages to the Laughlins for negligent construction. On appeal, the Court found that Forrest Construction was the first to materially breach the contract by failing to provide proper documentation of costs and abandoning the project. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding that Mr. Laughlin breached the contract and the awards to Forrest Construction. It affirmed that the Laughlins were excused from giving notice to cure defects due to Forrest Construction's material breach. The case was remanded to the trial court to re-evaluate the damages for negligent construction and to address the issue of piercing the corporate veil against Thomas Naive.

Construction ContractBreach of ContractNegligent ConstructionQuantum MeruitCorporate Veil PiercingDamagesMaterial BreachHome ConstructionCost Plus ContractAppellate Review
References
51
Case No. 08-20-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2022

Ceci Ibarra v. Noah's Roofing and Construction

This case involves an appeal by Cecilia Ibarra against a judgment favoring Noah’s Roofing & Construction regarding a residential roofing and repairs contract. Ibarra argued that she was discharged from her payment obligations because Noah's Roofing allegedly committed a prior, material breach by performing unworkmanlike work. The trial court, however, found that Ibarra had certified the work as completed to her satisfaction and subsequently materially breached the contract by refusing to pay. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's findings and conclusions, ultimately affirming the judgment, concluding that Noah's Roofing performed its contractual obligations and Ibarra failed to prove a prior material breach or a breach of implied warranty.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractMaterial BreachWorkmanlike MannerAffirmative DefenseSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTrial Court JudgmentCertification of WorkNon-payment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bates v. Jackson National Life Insurance

This case involves Jerry Bates and Brian Bates, beneficiaries of a life insurance policy, suing Jackson National Life Insurance Company to recover policy proceeds after their father, Mr. Bates, died. Jackson National denied the claim, alleging material misrepresentations by Mr. Bates regarding his health (specifically diabetes and phlebothrombosis) in the insurance application. The court considered Jackson National's motion for summary judgment on claims of breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of Article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code. The court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding Mr. Bates' intent to deceive. However, the court granted summary judgment for Jackson National on the claims of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and violation of Article 21.21, ruling that this duty does not extend to third-party beneficiaries like the plaintiffs under Texas law, and even if it did, Jackson National had a reasonable basis for denying the claim due to the admitted misrepresentations.

Life InsuranceMaterial MisrepresentationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractBad Faith ClaimDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance Code Article 21.21Third-Party BeneficiaryInsurance Policy ProceedsMedical History Disclosure
References
62
Showing 1-10 of 4,369 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