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
Feb 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fagan Holdings, Inc. v. Thinkware, Inc.

Plaintiff Fagan Holdings, Inc. sued Defendant Thinkware, Inc. for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation regarding a software licensing agreement. Fagan alleged that Thinkware's Darwin software failed to perform as promised and that customer support was inadequate. The court applied Ohio law to the contract claim and Texas law to the tort claims. The court granted Thinkware's motion for summary judgment on the claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the product support services section of the agreement. However, summary judgment was denied for the breach of express warranty claim and the indemnification claim, as genuine issues of material fact remained.

Breach of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligent MisrepresentationSummary JudgmentSoftware Licensing AgreementChoice of LawExpress WarrantyIndemnificationOhio LawTexas Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hermann Hospital v. National Standard Insurance Co.

Hermann Hospital appealed a summary judgment granted against it in a lawsuit against unnamed appellees (insurance companies). The hospital sued the appellees for misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and estoppel after the appellees initially verified insurance coverage for patient Jose Carreon, whom the hospital treated, but later denied coverage. Hermann Hospital alleged it relied on these representations and incurred over $200,000 in expenses. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the appellees. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment on the claims of misrepresentation under the Texas Insurance Code and negligent misrepresentation, finding that Hermann Hospital has standing and that material issues of fact exist. However, the court affirmed that estoppel is not an independent cause of action.

Summary JudgmentInsurance LawNegligent MisrepresentationDeceptive Trade PracticesStanding (Law)Appellate ReviewTexas Insurance CodeCommon LawReliance (Legal)Medical Billing
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodward v. Raymond James Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff John Woodward filed a class action complaint alleging that Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) and its executives engaged in a scheme to defraud shareholders by making material misrepresentations about the adequacy of loan loss reserves for its subsidiary, Raymond James Bank. The complaint detailed an alleged fraudulent scheme involving purposeful underfunding of loan loss reserves, concealment of risky lending practices, and misrepresentation of management styles and SEC filings. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Section 10(b) claim lacked actionable misrepresentations, adequate scienter, and loss causation, and that the Section 20(a) claims lacked a primary violation. The court found that most alleged misrepresentations were non-actionable puffery or lacked specificity, with only statements regarding independent underwriting being considered actionable. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to plead scienter with the required particularity, as most allegations were common corporate motives or lacked specific supporting facts. Consequently, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPleading StandardsPSLRARule 9(b)ScienterMaterial MisrepresentationLoan Loss ReservesFinancial Institutions
References
16
Case No. M1998-00934-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2001

Wade Cummins v. Opryland Productions

This case involves an alleged breach of an oral contract and a claim of negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs, an Elvis impersonator and his band, claimed Opryland Productions failed to honor an oral agreement to book them for the 1996 Summer Olympics, despite no written contract being executed. They also alleged negligent misrepresentation based on assurances from Opryland's agent. The trial court granted summary judgment for Opryland. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on the contract claim, finding no mutual assent or sufficiently definite terms, but reversed the summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim, noting that contractual privity is not required for this tort and disputed facts exist regarding faulty information and justifiable reliance.

Contract LawOral ContractNegligent MisrepresentationSummary JudgmentMutual AssentBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewTort LawCommercial TransactionsElvis Impersonator
References
34
Case No. 01-05-01190-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2009

Brown & Brown of Texas, Inc. F/K/A Poe & Brown of Texas, Inc. and Transcontinental Insurance Company v. Omni Metals, Inc.

The First District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed a case involving Omni Metals, Inc., which sued Brown & Brown of Texas, Inc. and Transcontinental Insurance Company for negligent misrepresentation and deceptive trade practices. Omni's claims stemmed from misrepresentations made by insurance agents regarding "all risk" bailee coverage for steel stored at Port Metal Processing, Inc., despite a known storage fee exclusion. The jury found in favor of Omni, leading to this appeal. The appellate court largely affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings of negligent misrepresentation and deceptive acts against the defendants. However, it modified the judgment by reversing the award of attorney's fees incurred by Omni in prior litigation.

Insurance MisrepresentationDeceptive Trade Practices ActNegligent MisrepresentationInsurance Agent LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeBailee PolicyStorage ExclusionActual AuthorityApparent AuthorityConsumer Status
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tahini Investments, Ltd. v. Bobrowsky

Plaintiff appealed two orders concerning a purchase-money mortgage and alleged misrepresentation during the sale of a 93-acre farm. Defendant, the seller, had represented the property as a horse farm, but industrial waste drums were later discovered. Plaintiff claimed defendant knew of the dumping site and failed to disclose it, constituting actionable misrepresentation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, denying knowledge and citing a disclaimer clause in the contract. The appellate court found triable issues of fact, stating that concealment of material facts can be misrepresentation, and a disclaimer does not always preclude claims if facts are peculiarly within the seller's knowledge. The court reversed the summary judgment, denying defendant’s motion and granting plaintiff’s motion to depose a nonparty witness.

MisrepresentationReal Estate SaleProperty DisclosureSummary Judgment ReversalMaterial Fact ConcealmentDisclaimer ClausePeculiar Knowledge DoctrineDeposition of Nonparty WitnessIndustrial Waste DiscoveryDutchess County Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bane v. Daniel Construction Co.

In this workers' compensation case, the employer, Daniel Construction Company, appealed a trial court's decision to award benefits to its employee, William J. Bane. The employer contended that Bane made willful and knowing misrepresentations regarding his physical condition on his employment application, which should bar recovery. Bane had previously experienced minor back issues but denied them on an ambiguously worded medical history form before suffering a ruptured disc while working for Daniel Construction. The Supreme Court applied a three-part test, finding the employer failed to prove knowing misrepresentation, material reliance, or a causal connection between the alleged misrepresentation and the subsequent injury. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the award of medical expenses and partial disability benefits to Bane.

Workers' CompensationMedical MisrepresentationEmployment ApplicationBack InjuryRuptured DiscCausal ConnectionPre-existing ConditionEmployer RelianceTrial Court JudgmentAppellate Review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 683 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