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. 131 AD3d 553
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2015

Assevero v. Hamilton & Church Properties, LLC

Hugo Assevero was injured falling from an unsecured ladder while working on a building renovation project owned by Hamilton & Church Properties, LLC. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law sections, and Hamilton initiated a third-party action against Castle Construction Group. The Supreme Court initially granted Hamilton's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims based on the homeowner's exemption. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the building did not qualify for the homeowner's exemption due to its mixed commercial and multi-residential use. Consequently, Hamilton's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Assevero's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and Castle's cross-motion for summary judgment on indemnification claims.

Labor LawHomeowner's ExemptionSummary Judgment MotionLadder FallConstruction AccidentPersonal Injury ClaimCorporate Property OwnershipContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationThird-Party Litigation
References
25
Case No. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. 03-15-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2015

California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.

The appellants, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA), and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), collectively "Guaranty Associations," are appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee, Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ("Hill Bros."). The suit was filed on March 31, 2009, alleging Hill Bros. failed to reimburse the Guaranty Associations for payments of workers' compensation benefits and claim handling expenses within the deductible limits of a policy issued by the insolvent Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Hill Bros. based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the cause of action accrued on April 1, 2002. The Guaranty Associations argue that the accrual date is incorrect, as their statutory obligations had not been triggered, payments had not been made, and demand for reimbursement had not occurred by that date. They also contend that their compliance with Pennsylvania law (the "Pennsylvania Act") in seeking reimbursement through Legion in Liquidation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for any delay, making reasonableness a fact question. Furthermore, they assert the policy was a continuing contract, and the statute of limitations should not have accrued until full performance on April 28, 2009. Alternatively, they argue that claims for deductible payments made within four years of filing suit (March 31, 2005) are not barred.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty AssociationStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeductible ReimbursementInsolvencyInsurance PolicyContinuing ContractPennsylvania ActTravis County
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. 13-03-099-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Luciano Islas v. Central Ready Mix Concrete

Luciano Islas sued Central Ready Mix Concrete Company for injuries suffered while exiting a cement truck drum. The jury found Central Ready Mix 20% negligent and awarded Islas $290,000, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Central Ready Mix was negligent and its negligence was a proximate cause of Islas's injuries, given its knowledge of past accidents and failure to ensure safety procedures for a dangerous outsourced activity. The court reinstated the jury's verdict, holding Central Ready Mix 20% liable.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorForeseeabilityJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSafety ProceduresCement Truck
References
11
Case No. 07-10-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2011

Randy Brown v. Bill Holman and Claytex Properties, Inc.

Randy Brown, an employee of ClayTex Properties, Inc., sued his employer for personal injuries sustained while cleaning a storage building at a shareholder's home. ClayTex, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance, moved for summary judgment, asserting that Brown's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injury. Brown was instructed to park a truck behind a fence but had options to use a gate or lift items over the fence. He chose to repeatedly climb the fence with heavy clay molds, leading to his injury. The trial court granted summary judgment, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Brown's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injury because his chosen method of negotiating the fence was not a foreseeable consequence of the employer's instruction to park the truck behind the fence.

Workers' Compensation Non-subscriberSummary JudgmentSole Proximate CausePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewCause in FactForeseeabilityEmployee NegligenceEmployer LiabilityTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. ADJ1505960 (RDG 0127227)
Regular
May 29, 2009

JOSEPH RHOADS vs. WESTERN READY MIX, INC.; and TRAVELERS PROPERTY \& CASUALTY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant Western Ready Mix, Inc., and its insurer, Travelers Property & Casualty, regarding a March 12, 2009 decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted this petition for reconsideration. This action is necessary to allow the Board further time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented. The Board intends to issue a just and reasoned decision after a complete understanding of the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting PetitionDecision After ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsOfficial Address Record
References
0
Case No. 03-07-00240-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2008

Myrad Properties, Inc. v. Lasalle Bank National Ass'n

Myrad Properties, Inc. appealed a summary judgment concerning the non-judicial foreclosure of two apartment complexes, La Casa and Casa Grande, secured by a single note. The central dispute involved an error in the foreclosure notice that only described one property. The court determined that despite the inconsistency, references to the Deed of Trust provided sufficient notice for both properties. The lower court's judgment, affirming the conveyance of both properties and the validity of the correction deed, was largely upheld. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the claim for a surplus due to Myrad, citing unresolved fact issues regarding the calculation of Myrad's outstanding debt.

ForeclosureNon-judicial foreclosureDeed of TrustProperty description errorSummary judgmentReal propertyApartment complexesSubstitute trusteeNotice of saleCorrection deed
References
29
Case No. 14-09-00579-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2009

in Re Boxer Property Management Corporation and 9343 North Loop, L.P.

Boxer Property Management Corporation and 9343 North Loop, L.P. (Relators) sought a writ of mandamus to vacate a trial court order compelling the deposition of their corporate representative. The Relators contended that the deposition would improperly delve into attorney work product concerning their discovery responses to the Wells plaintiffs. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals found that the approved deposition questions were designed to investigate the methods used by counsel in searching for documents, which constitutes privileged attorney work product. Lacking concrete evidence of discovery abuse, the court determined the trial court abused its discretion. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior order.

Discovery DisputeAttorney Work ProductPrivilegeMandamusCorporate RepresentativeDepositionTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas Civil Procedure
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 5,021 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