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. ADJ123485
Regular
Aug 21, 2014

AUGUSTINE BARRAGAN vs. MISSION BUILDERS HOME IMPROVEMENT, LP, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, KUKLAKI, INC, VICTORIA STATHIS, SAN DIEGO ROOFING, INC, GARY LOUGIAKIS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves applicant Augustine Barragan against multiple defendants, including Mission Builders Home Improvement, LP and Kukliki, Inc. (dba San Diego Roofing), which are uninsured. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration. Pending a Decision After Reconsideration, all future filings and communications must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners' Office in San Francisco, not to any district office or via e-filing.

Augustine BarraganMission Builders Home Improvement LPCalifornia Insurance CompanyKuklaki Inc.San Diego Roofing Inc.uninsuredVictoria StathisGary LougiakisUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas D/B/A Bonded Builders Warranty Group, Daniel Avila, Grisele Edith Arizpe, and AA Builders, LLC v. Patricia Rockoff

Patricia Rockoff purchased a home from AA Builders, LLC, which included a warranty from Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas (BBWG). After discovering structural defects, Rockoff filed claims against both AA Builders and BBWG, subsequently initiating a lawsuit. Both AA Builders and BBWG moved to compel arbitration based on the warranty's terms, but the trial court denied these motions. On interlocutory appeal, the appellate court reversed, affirming the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. The court rejected arguments regarding the unconscionability of arbitrator selection and limitations on remedies, but remanded the case for the trial court to determine if the arbitration costs render the agreement substantively unconscionable after an arbitrator is appointed.

Interlocutory AppealArbitrationUnconscionabilityHome WarrantyConstruction DefectsFederal Arbitration ActTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActContract LawProcedural UnconscionabilitySubstantive Unconscionability
References
54
Case No. 08-23-00355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2025

New Mission Home Care, LLC v. Tony Lawrence Read, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of George Read, and Bertha Acosta, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Teresa Acosta Read

New Mission Home Care, LLC appealed a $13 million jury verdict in a car-train collision case. The appellate court identified jury charge error regarding the definition of "course and scope" of employment, which was crucial for assessing New Mission's vicarious liability. Upon review, the court found legally insufficient evidence to support the appellees' vicarious liability claim based on the corrected course-and-scope definition. Furthermore, the court determined there was also legally insufficient evidence to sustain the direct liability claims, including negligent hiring, retaining, training, and supervision, against New Mission. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of New Mission.

Vicarious LiabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent TrainingNegligent SupervisionJury Charge ErrorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewCar-Train Collision
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Speedway Home Improvement Co. v. Gourdine

Speedway Home Improvement Co. (Speedway), a licensed contractor, challenged a decision by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Speedway had contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Hannon for home renovation, but after commencing work and receiving partial payments, abandoned the project due to alleged underestimation, demanding further price increases which the Hannons refused. The Hannons filed a complaint with DCA, which, after a hearing, found Speedway guilty of abandoning the contract without justification and awarded the Hannons $21,110. Speedway argued that the DCA hearing denied due process and that the award was arbitrary and excessive. The court, however, found that Speedway received due process, the DCA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the monetary award was not a disproportionate penalty but merely compensated the Hannons for expenses incurred in hiring a second contractor. Consequently, the court denied Speedway's petition and dismissed the proceeding.

CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewConsumer ProtectionHome Improvement ContractBreach of ContractDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceMonetary DamagesAgency DiscretionContract Abandonment
References
7
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. CA 15-01122
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2016

KING, III, JOSEPH v. MALONE HOME BUILDERS, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph King III commenced this Labor Law action against Malone Home Builders, Inc., seeking damages for injuries from a fall through an unguarded stairwell during construction. King moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and to dismiss the defendant's special employee defense, which claimed workers' compensation as the sole remedy. The Supreme Court conditionally granted King's motion for liability but denied the dismissal of the special employee defense, citing a factual dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division granted King's motion in its entirety, dismissing the defendant's special employee defense based on collateral estoppel from a prior Workers' Compensation Board determination, and affirmed the partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability for the plaintiff.

Labor LawWorkers' CompensationCollateral EstoppelSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentUnguarded StairwellPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 14-19-00394-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Gerardo Batista Ortiz v. Builders First Source - South Texas, LP

Gerardo Batista Ortiz was injured during his employment with Builders First Source - South Texas, LP, a nonsubscriber to workers’ compensation. His claim was subject to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. After a previous arbitration and related litigation, the claims were re-arbitrated, resulting in an award for Ortiz. Ortiz sought to modify the award to include prejudgment interest and costs, which the arbitrator denied. The trial court confirmed the arbitrator's award and denied Ortiz's motion to modify. On appeal, Ortiz argued that the trial court erred in not granting his motion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the arbitration award accurately reflected the arbitrator's intent and that the court did not have the authority to modify the award to grant additional relief.

ArbitrationPrejudgment InterestPost-judgment InterestCostsFederal Arbitration ActTexas General Arbitration ActArbitration AwardWorkers' Compensation NonsubscriberInjury Benefit PlanAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06288
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2023

Matter of Puccio v. Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC

Claimant Anthony Puccio, a masonry worker, was rendered paraplegic after falling from a roof in September 2019. He filed a workers' compensation claim against Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC, which the State Insurance Fund (SIF) initially accepted but later controverted, asserting claimant was a partner and not an employee, thus excluded from coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board disallowed the claim, finding claimant was a profit-sharing partner/owner. Claimant appealed, arguing SIF failed to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 21-a (3) and that the Board erred in its finding of no employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the statutory compliance issue was unpreserved and substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that claimant was a partner, not an employee.

Employer-Employee RelationshipPartnership StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCoverage DenialProfit-Sharing AgreementTax Returns as EvidenceAdministrative ReviewReconsideration DenialJudicial Review of Board DecisionsSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. NO. 09-20-00292-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

OHAH, Ltd., D/B/A Oak Haven Apartment Homes v. LNG Builders, LLC, Odom Texas Development, LLC and the City of Shenandoah

Appellant OHAH, Ltd., d/b/a Oak Haven Apartment Homes (Oak Haven) appealed the trial court’s final judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees LNG Builders, LLC (LNG), Odom Texas Development, LLC (OTD), and the City of Shenandoah (the City). The dispute concerned an easement and drainage line built by the defendants on Oak Haven’s property. Oak Haven initially sued LNG and OTD for trespass, seeking injunctive relief and damages, alleging they had no right to construct a drainage line across its property. The City intervened, claiming an 80-foot utility easement (80’ U.E.) by dedication from a 2000 plat, which it claimed allowed LNG to build the drainage line. The trial court initially denied Oak Haven's temporary injunction, later granted Oak Haven's motion for partial summary judgment, but then vacated that order and granted summary judgments for LNG, OTD, and the City, and issued a take-nothing judgment against Oak Haven. The Court of Appeals found that the plat language referencing an "80’ U.E." was unclear as to whether it created a new easement for public use or merely marked a pre-existing easement for G.S.U. Even assuming an easement was dedicated, the Court concluded that LNG and OTD are not "public utilities" and their construction of a drainage line for OTD's private property drainage was inconsistent with the scope of a public utility easement, thus exceeding any purported grant. The Court also rejected OTD's and LNG's claims of derivative sovereign immunity, stating that a City permit does not immunize private contractors acting for a private property owner from tort liability. The Court determined the trial court erred in denying Oak Haven's motion for partial summary judgment and granting summary judgments for OTD and LNG on trespass and other claims, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant summary judgment for the City on non-suited claims. The appellate court vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Easement DisputeDrainage LineTrespassSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPublic UtilitiesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationProperty RightsConstruction Law
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 2,784 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