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

Nixson v. Mobil Oil Corp.

David R. Nixson, an employee of Mobil Oil Corporation, suffered a severe arm injury requiring amputation in 1994 while working with rail cars. Mobil was a subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, and Nixson received workers' compensation benefits. Nixson subsequently filed a suit against Mobil and Marie Newman under the Texas Railroad Liability Act. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of Mobil and Newman, which Nixson appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Nixson's failure to provide notice waiving workers' compensation benefits and electing a statutory cause of action under the Railroad Liability Act limited him to the exclusive remedy of the Workers' Compensation Act, as determined by statutory construction regarding the conflict between the two acts.

Workers' CompensationRailroad Liability ActSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyStatutory ConflictLegislative IntentElection of RemediesTexas LawIndustrial AccidentEmployee Injury
References
17
Case No. 09-06-568 CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2008

Thomas Louis v. Mobil Chemical Company, a Division of Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, James Bowser and Randall Roy

Thomas Louis sued his former employer, Mobil Chemical Company, and two supervisors for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and retaliation after his employment ceased. Louis alleged he was compelled by supervisors to falsify safety reports, was verbally abused, and subsequently terminated for violating the company's ethics policy. He also claimed racial discrimination and retaliatory discharge after inquiring about workers' compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's decision, as the conduct did not meet the

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFalsification of RecordsWorkplace HarassmentEmployment LawTexas Court of AppealsHostile Work EnvironmentWorkers' Compensation Claim
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 1994

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender

This case involves Mobil Oil Corporation's appeal of a jury verdict exceeding four million dollars, which found Mobil negligent and grossly negligent in the death of Eli Arnold Ellender due to benzene exposure. Mobil challenged the application of new punitive damage standards (Moriel/Kraus factors), the factual sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence and malice, the disallowance of settlement credit, and the calculation of prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the findings of gross negligence and malice, upholding the jury's verdict in part. However, it reversed and remanded the case for recalculation of prejudgment interest, citing an error in how it was applied before the punitive damage cap. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to deny settlement credit to Mobil due to insufficient evidence of the settlement amount presented by Mobil.

Benzene exposureAcute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)Gross negligencePunitive damagesSettlement creditPrejudgment interestIndustrial safetyOccupational hazardsCorporate liabilityToxic tort
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Steven Gaedecke, an employee of Gulf Offshore Company, sued Mobil Oil Corporation for personal injuries sustained on a vessel during a hurricane evacuation from an offshore platform. Mobil, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Gulf Offshore seeking indemnity based on a contract for well completion operations. The jury found Mobil negligent as a platform operator, but also found Gaedecke's injuries resulted directly or indirectly from Gulf Offshore's work under its contract with Mobil. The trial court granted Mobil indemnity of $900,000 from Gulf Offshore. Gulf Offshore appealed, challenging the Texas state court's jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, alleging fraud and collusion in the verdict, disputing the contractual indemnity terms, and raising issues with jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding state courts have jurisdiction and upholding the indemnity agreement under federal and Louisiana law as surrogate federal law.

Offshore InjuryIndemnity AgreementOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActFederal JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionContractual LiabilityMaritime LawPersonal InjuryNegligenceHurricane Evacuation
References
16
Case No. 09-06-298 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2006

in Re Exxon Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Individually F/K/A Mobil Oil Corporation and A/K/A Mobil Chemical Company, a Division of ExxonMobile Oil Corporation, Mobil Chemical Company, Inc., Individually and F/K/A Mobil Chemical Corporation

This mandamus proceeding before the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses whether a trial court can compel a party to present a deponent to detail efforts taken to search for documents. Exxon, defendants in underlying benzene exposure suits by Wilkinson, Hebert, and Stubbs, challenged a trial court's order requiring a deposition regarding their discovery compliance. The Court of Appeals found the order constituted an improper 'fishing expedition' that would invade attorney-client and work product privileges, as it sought to inquire into the mental processes of counsel. The court concluded the trial court abused its discretion and conditionally granted mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior discovery order.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeWork Product PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeFishing ExpeditionTexas Civil ProcedureOverbroad DiscoveryDepositionCorporate RepresentativeBenzene Exposure
References
6
Case No. 13-00-634-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Mobil Producing Texas & New Mexico, Inc. v. Robert Cantor, Eddie Cantor, and Royce A. Scott

Mobil Producing Texas & New Mexico, Inc. appealed a summary judgment order concerning an oil and gas dispute in Gonzales County. Mobil had sued Robert Cantor, Eddie Cantor, and Royce A. Scott to recover overpaid revenues after the appellees opted out of well reworking operations. The trial court limited Mobil's damages to a two-year statute of limitations based on unjust enrichment, rejecting Mobil's arguments for a four-year contract limitations period, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in applying the two-year limitation for unjust enrichment, as no breach of contract was established against the appellees.

Oil and Gas LawUnjust EnrichmentBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesCourt CostsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
25
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08510
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2019

Franklin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

The plaintiff, Mark Franklin, brought an action against T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Dyckman Realty Associates L.P. T-Mobile and Dyckman Realty then filed a third-party action against Energy Design Service Systems, LLC, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied T-Mobile and Dyckman Realty's motion for summary judgment on their indemnification claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding that issues of fact regarding the negligence of the defendants/third-party plaintiffs precluded summary judgment.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentNegligenceDangerous ConditionPremises LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate Division First DepartmentLabor LawDuty to Keep Premises SafeNotice of Hazard
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07763 [176 AD3d 1160]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2019

Bruno v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc.

The plaintiff, Randal Bruno, a maintenance technician, sustained injuries when he tripped on a "step-over" on a roof leased by T-Mobile, USA, Inc. He initiated a consolidated action against T-Mobile and its predecessor, Omnipoint Communications, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing these causes of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the defendants established prima facie that the step-over was not a dangerous condition and that they lacked actual or constructive notice of any defect. The court further determined that the plaintiff's expert affidavit, relying on inapplicable code provisions, was insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Premises liabilitySummary judgmentNegligenceLabor Law § 200Appellate DivisionDangerous conditionNotice requirementPersonal injuryWorkplace accidentAffirmed decision
References
7
Case No. 01-19-00852-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2021

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

This case involves two related appeals concerning insurance coverage for bodily injury claims against Exxon Mobil Corporation by its contractor's employees, Kevin Roberts and Arturo Munoz. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. challenged a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Exxon and Starr Indemnity and Liability Insurance Company, arguing its umbrella policy did not provide coverage beyond its CGL policy, as dictated by the Exxon-Savage Contract. Exxon also challenged a summary judgment favoring Starr. The appeals court reversed the judgment against National Union, finding that 'Commercial General Liability insurance' in the contract referred only to primary coverage, not umbrella or excess policies. Consequently, Exxon was not entitled to coverage under National Union's umbrella policy. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Starr, as its bumbershoot policy was also considered an umbrella policy. The case was remanded for reconsideration of attorney's fees and costs.

Insurance Policy InterpretationCommercial General LiabilityUmbrella Liability InsuranceExcess Liability InsuranceAdditional Insured EndorsementSummary Judgment ReviewBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury Claims
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zivali v. AT & T MOBILITY, LLC

The plaintiffs, led by Gamze Zivali, initiated a class and collective action against AT&T Mobility, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning unpaid wages and overtime. Following a period where conditional class certification was granted and over 4,100 plaintiffs opted in, the defendant moved to decertify the collective action and for summary judgment. The District Court granted the motion to decertify, concluding that the plaintiffs were not "similarly situated" due to varied employment settings and individualized defenses, making collective action treatment impractical. However, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment, citing numerous unresolved material facts. Consequently, the named plaintiff, Ms. Zivali, will proceed with her individual claims to trial.

FLSACollective ActionClass ActionWage and HourOvertime CompensationDecertificationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawTimekeeping PolicyOff-the-Clock Work
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 510 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