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

International Freight Forwarding, Inc. v. American Flange

This case involves American Flange ("American") suing International Freight Forwarding ("IFF") for damages due to IFF's failure to deliver steel plugs to American's Mexican buyer, Tri-Sure. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of American, awarding $20,620.00 in damages plus attorney's fees and court costs. IFF appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of standing and its findings regarding bailment, invoice alteration, necessary documentation, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that title to the goods revested in American upon Tri-Sure's refusal of delivery, thereby establishing American's standing. The court also upheld the existence of a bailment between American and IFF and found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings on documentation, functionality of the plugs, and the amount of damages for conversion.

BailmentConversionStandingCommercial LawUniform Commercial CodeContract LawDamagesAppellate ReviewFindings of FactConclusions of Law
References
34
Case No. 14-02-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Limited, and Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Limited, D/B/A Village Builders v. Great American Insurance Company, American Dynasty Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Markel American Insurance Company Gerling America Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Westchester Fire Ins Company

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute between homebuilder Lennar Corporation and its CGL insurance carriers over damages caused by defective stucco (EIFS) applied to homes. The court analyzed whether negligently defective construction constitutes an "occurrence" and distinguished between covered costs (repairing actual water damage) and non-covered costs (preventative EIFS replacement, overhead). While affirming summary judgment for several insurers due to unmet self-insured retentions based on individual homes as separate occurrences, the court reversed for American Dynasty and Markel, citing unresolved factual issues regarding "known loss" and policy conditions. Lennar's extra-contractual claims against American Dynasty were ultimately denied for lack of proven damages or statutory violations.

Insurance Policy InterpretationConstruction DefectsCommercial Liability InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimsStucco DefectsDuty to IndemnifySelf-Insured RetentionsKnown Loss PrincipleSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Law
References
96
Case No. No. M2018-01696-COA-R3-CV; No. 15-4-IV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2020

American Board of Craniofacial Pain v. American Board Of Orofacial Pain

This case involves an appeal concerning a failed merger between two professional dental associations, American Board of Craniofacial Pain (ABCP) and American Board of Orofacial Pain (ABOP). ABCP sued ABOP, alleging a breach of an agreement to merge formed through email exchanges and seeking specific performance and damages. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted summary judgment to ABOP, finding no meeting of the minds and thus no enforceable contract. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this decision, concluding that the parties’ objective manifestations showed a lack of mutual assent because an essential term (disposition of intellectual property) was not agreed upon and they intended to reduce the agreement to a formal Memorandum of Understanding, which was never finalized. The court also agreed that specific performance was not an available remedy due to the incompleteness of the purported contract.

Contract DisputeMerger NegotiationsCorporate MergerDental ProfessionMutual AssentSpecific Performance DenialSummary Judgment AffirmationTennessee Court of AppealsContract FormationLack of Agreement
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seguros Comercial Americas S.A. De C v. v. American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves Seguros Comercial America, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican insurance company, as the subrogee of RBK International (Mexico), suing American President Lines, Ltd. (APL) for negligence. The dispute arose from the hijacking of a container of Reebok Tennis shoes during overland transport in Mexico, after being shipped from Indonesia. The court examined the applicability of the Carmack Amendment and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), concluding that neither applied by force of law to the entire shipment, and that the Mexico Liability Clause in the bill of lading contractually extended Mexican law to the overland portion in Mexico. Consequently, the court granted APL's motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, finding Mexico to be an available and adequate alternative forum with a stronger nexus to the localized controversy and Mexican law governing the dispute.

Forum Non ConveniensCarriage of Goods by Sea ActCarmack AmendmentChoice of LawBill of LadingInternational ShippingCargo TheftMaritime CommerceNegligence LitigationJurisdictional Dispute
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Shield Corp. v. Lahorgue

This case addresses the enforceability of a contractual indemnity clause under Texas fair notice requirements. American Home Shield (American Home) sought indemnity from Turn-Key Pool & Spa (Turn-Key) following a personal injury suit stemming from a spa heater explosion serviced by Turn-Key. The trial court denied American Home's motion for summary judgment and granted Turn-Key's, ruling the indemnity provision failed both the conspicuousness requirement and the express negligence doctrine. On appeal, American Home contended the provision satisfied fair notice or, alternatively, Turn-Key had actual notice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the indemnity provision was not conspicuous and American Home failed to establish actual knowledge, thus rendering the clause unenforceable.

Contractual IndemnityFair Notice RequirementsConspicuousnessExpress Negligence DoctrineActual Knowledge ExceptionSummary JudgmentTexas LawIndemnity ClauseService Agreement DisputeAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 09-01-511 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2002

American National Insurance Company, and American National Property and Casualty Company v. Frank E. Cannon, II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated

This is an interlocutory appeal from a class certification order. American National Insurance Company (ANICO) and American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) appealed the certification of a class action brought by former agents (Frank E. Cannon II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover). The agents alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Insurance Code, seeking declaratory judgments regarding non-compete provisions and repayment of advance agreements. The appellate court found that individual issues, such as the reasonableness of non-compete restrictions and reliance on oral representations for advance payments, predominated over common issues. Consequently, the court determined that the requirements for class certification under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)(4), (b)(2), and (b)(1)(A) were not satisfied. The class certification order was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealContract DisputeNon-compete ClauseAgent AgreementsInsurance AgentsDeclaratory JudgmentStandingRipenessPredominance
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Maintenance & Rentals, Inc. v. Estrada

Manuel Estrada, an employee of Commercial Metals, was severely burned when a pressurized cylinder containing flammable hydraulic fluid ignited while he was cutting it. Estrada sued American Maintenance & Rentals (American) and Freeport Blasters for negligence and marketing defect, arguing American supplied the dangerous cylinders. On appeal, the court examined the admissibility of various statements by Jeff Stanley, president of Freeport Blasters, which implicated American. The court found error in admitting Stanley's assertions to Estrada's investigator without a limiting instruction, deeming them incompetent hearsay. Concluding that without this improperly admitted evidence, there was no more than a scintilla of circumstantial evidence to prove American supplied the cylinders, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

NegligenceMarketing DefectHearsay EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceInterrogatoriesAgency RelationshipSpoliationVerbal ActsAdmission by ConductReversible Error
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1983

American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. v. North River Insurance

Vincent Yeager, an employee of American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. (American), was injured during employment, leading to a lawsuit against a machine manufacturer, who then brought a third-party action against American for indemnification. American was covered by both a workers’ compensation policy from the State Insurance Fund and a general liability policy from North River Insurance Co. North River disclaimed liability, citing exclusions for workers’ compensation obligations and bodily injury to employees. American then initiated a fourth-party action against North River for contribution. The Supreme Court initially denied American's summary judgment motion and granted North River's cross-motion to dismiss, with leave to replead for indemnification. This court reversed, holding that North River's exclusions do not insulate it from American’s claims because the employer's liability to a third-party tort-feasor for an employee's injury arises from equitable apportionment, not directly from workers' compensation law, thus granting American's motion for summary judgment and denying North River's cross-motion.

Insurance coverage disputeGeneral liability policyWorkers' compensation exclusionContribution between tort-feasorsIndemnificationSummary judgmentFourth-party actionDole-Dow doctrineEquitable apportionmentEmployer liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. American Re-Insurance Co.

The case revolves around a dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company and American Re-Insurance Company regarding a pollution exclusion clause in a reinsurance policy. National Union sought reimbursement from American Re after settling claims where employees were exposed to metalworking fluids. American Re denied coverage, arguing its pollution exclusion applied. The court, applying Ohio law, found American Re's pollution exclusion ambiguous due to its broad language and its intended purpose of covering environmental contamination. Consequently, American Re's motion for summary judgment was denied, and National Union's motion to strike American Re's defense was granted, requiring American Re to "follow the fortunes" of National Union.

ReinsurancePollution Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationFollow the Fortunes DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAmbiguity in ContractsOhio State LawDiversity JurisdictionIndustrial Contamination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curry v. American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502

Curry, a former Regional Insurance Underwriting Manager for AIG, sued American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502 and American International Life Assurance Co. of New York ("AI Life") under ERISA § 502(a) after her long-term disability benefits were terminated. Curry suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis and diabetes. AI Life initially approved her benefits but later terminated them, alleging she could perform a sedentary occupation, relying on unverified medical responses. The court found AI Life's decision to be arbitrary and capricious due to its reliance on unreliable medical opinions, failure to clarify the record, and disregard for Curry's doctors' reports. Consequently, the court granted Curry's motion for summary judgment, denying the defendants' motion, and ordered the reinstatement of her benefits with prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

ERISALong-term disabilityBenefits terminationArbitrary and capricious standardConflict of interestMedical opinionUnreliable evidenceSummary judgmentOrthopaedic conditionsDiabetes
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,737 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