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. 14-02-00085-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2003

Yucca Supply Company v. Continental Operating Company

Yucca Supply Company, appellant, sued Continental Operating Company, appellee, for amounts due for drilling-mud supplies and services. Continental counterclaimed, alleging damages caused by Yucca's negligence. The jury sided with Continental, awarding approximately $60,000. Yucca appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of its judgment n.o.v. motions on breach of contract and quantum meruit claims, as well as the legal and factual sufficiency of the negligence finding. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the contract issues were properly handled, quantum meruit claim was immaterial given the implied contract, and there was sufficient evidence to support the negligence finding. The court also upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings and the denial of attorney's fees and interest to Yucca due to its lack of recovered damages.

Contract DisputeQuantum MeruitNegligenceDrilling ServicesOil and Gas IndustryAppellate ReviewJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictEvidentiary RulingsBreach of ContractDamages Award
References
8
Case No. ADJ4166687 (AHM 0046295) ADJ1681006 (AHM 0088073)
Regular
Jun 13, 2014

GINA NEVARES vs. McMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY, TIG/ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves Gina Nevares as the applicant against McMaster-Carr Supply Company and its insurers. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered a Petition for Removal filed in this matter. The WCAB adopted the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge and ordered the Petition for Removal dismissed. The dismissal is based on the WCJ's report, which is incorporated by reference.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDismissalGina NevaresMcMaster-Carr Supply CompanyTIG/Zenith Insurance CompanyZurich North AmericaADJ4166687ADJ1681006
References
0
Case No. M2023-00249-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2024

Brian Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Company (Dissenting)

This dissenting opinion addresses a premises liability suit by Brian Coblentz against Tractor Supply Company. The central issue is whether Tractor Supply is Coblentz's statutory employer, which would preclude his tort claim due to workers' compensation's exclusive remedy provision. The majority concluded that Tractor Supply is a statutory employer, based on existing Tennessee caselaw. The dissenting judge argues that Tennessee caselaw has not adequately considered vendor-vendee relationships, like that between Tractor Supply and Coblentz's immediate employer, Stanley National (a product vendor), when determining statutory employer status. The dissent posits that applying the current framework to vendors improperly expands workers' compensation liability and reduces employee protections against negligence, advocating for further examination of this legal gap.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerPremises LiabilityVendor-Vendee RelationshipSubcontractor StatusExclusive RemedyDissenting OpinionContract LawTennessee LawTort Immunity
References
23
Case No. 2-04-065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tarrant County Hospital District D/B/A John Peter Smith Hospital v. GE Automation Services, Inc., F/K/A GE Industrial Systems Solutions, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., F/K/A GE Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company

Appellant Tarrant County Hospital District appealed a summary judgment granted to Appellees GE Automation Services, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company. The suit stemmed from a 1996 transaction where Appellant alleged Appellees provided a defective bus duct system, leading to contract, warranty, products liability, and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 2.725) barred the contract and warranty claims, overriding governmental immunity. Furthermore, the court held that the economic loss rule precluded Appellant's tort claims, as the alleged damages constituted economic losses to the subject matter of the contract itself.

Summary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEconomic Loss RuleBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyProducts LiabilityNegligenceUniform Commercial CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
34
Case No. 01-00-00586-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company

This case involves indemnity and insurance claims arising from oilfield litigation. Appellants, Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company, appealed a summary judgment granted to appellees, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company. The trial court had ruled that mutual indemnity provisions in an oil and gas drilling contract were void under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment, holding that the contract was enforceable up to the extent of mutual coverage and dollar limits, and that its indemnity provisions were conspicuous.

Oilfield LitigationIndemnityInsurance ClaimsTexas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationMutual Indemnity ObligationConspicuousnessAppellate ReviewWell Blowout
References
18
Case No. 13-05-065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2007

Phoenix Assurance Company of New York v. Dallas Fire Insurance Company and Anthony Brown

This appeal arises from a summary judgment granted in favor of Dallas Fire Insurance Company (Dallas Insurance) and against Phoenix Assurance Company of New York (Phoenix Assurance) in a workers' compensation case. The core issue revolves around determining whether Staff Force, Inc. or Roofing Supply of Corpus Christi was the employer of Anthony Brown for workers' compensation purposes, which dictates the responsible insurer. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Dallas Insurance, identifying Roofing Supply as the employer. However, the appellate court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of an agreement for workers' compensation coverage between Staff Force and Roofing Supply. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve this factual dispute.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentJudicial EstoppelEmployer-Employee RelationshipInsurance Carrier LiabilityTemporary Staffing AgencyBorrowed Servant DoctrineFact IssueRemandAgreement Interpretation
References
20
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. 03-00-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

All American Life Insurance Company American General Life Insurance Company American National Insurance Company American National Life Insurance Company of Texas IDS Life Insurance Company And USLIFE Life Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas

Several insurance companies appealed a district court judgment affirming the Comptroller's assessment of premium and maintenance taxes on 'internal rollover' transactions, where policyholders transfer accumulation values within the same company for new policies. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reviewed the construction of Texas Insurance Code articles 4.11 and 4.17 de novo. The court determined that 'internal rollovers' do not involve funds being 'received' or 'collected' by the insurance companies, as the funds remain within the company. Therefore, these transactions are not subject to the premium and maintenance taxes. The judgment of the district court was reversed in part, and the case was remanded for a determination of the refund amounts owed to the companies.

Insurance LawTax LawPremium TaxInternal RolloversStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of AppealsInsurance CompaniesComptrollerGross PremiumsTax Refund
References
9
Case No. 14-19-00851-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2021

Michael D. Fenley v. Texas Plumbing Supply Company, Inc.

Michael D. Fenley sued Texas Plumbing Supply Company, Inc. for age discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliatory termination after his employment was terminated in November 2016, seven months after being hired. Fenley alleged that his supervisor made frequent age-related comments and complained about his back problems and a broken finger, which required surgery and workers' compensation claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for Texas Plumbing on all claims, but Fenley appealed, challenging these grounds. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the disability discrimination and retaliation claims, finding Fenley failed to provide sufficient evidence of a "disability" or a retaliatory motive. However, the court reversed and remanded the age discrimination claim, concluding that Fenley's personal statement provided direct evidence of discriminatory animus, such as his supervisor telling him he was "too old for this job."

Age DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliatory TerminationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTexas Labor CodeDirect EvidenceCausal ConnectionPretextAppellate Review
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yklik Medical Supply, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Yklik Medical Supply, Inc., a medical supply provider, sued Allstate Insurance Company to recover $317 in unpaid medical bills for equipment supplied to its assignor, Tammy Agosto. Yklik moved for summary judgment, asserting proper bill submission and Allstate's failure to timely pay or deny the claim. Allstate argued that the charges exceeded the Workers' Compensation fee schedule and that a partial payment had been made. The court found that Yklik established a prima facie case. The central issue was whether Allstate's fee schedule defense was precluded due to its failure to issue a timely denial within 30 days as mandated by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. The court ruled that since Allstate waited 56 days to send its denial, it was precluded from raising the fee schedule defense, and therefore, summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

No-fault insurancesummary judgmenttimely denialfee schedulepreclusion ruleinsurance lawmedical supplybilling practicespersonal injury protectionassignor
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 11,645 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