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

In Re Foster Mold, Inc.

Foster Mold, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus against the trial court's order denying its motion to stay proceedings and refer a wrongful termination case to arbitration. Former employees Patricia and Ricardo Arellano had sued Foster Mold, Inc. after being discharged, despite signing an 'Employment and Arbitration Contract' that stipulated arbitration for employment-related disputes. The appellate court determined that under the Federal Arbitration Act, claims of unconscionability related to the contents of an arbitration contract, rather than its inducement, must be decided by an arbitrator. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to withdraw its denial, stay the proceedings, and refer the case to arbitration.

ArbitrationMandamusEmployment ContractUnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration ActWorkers' CompensationTexas LawMotion to StayAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
13
Case No. 08-06-00153-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2008

David J. Quick v. Plastics Solutions of Texas, Inc., a Texas Corporation Plastics Solutions Molding, Inc., a Texas Corporation Kurt H. Ruppman, Sr., Individually and Fairfield Enterprises, Inc.

Appellant David J. Quick appealed a take-nothing judgment concerning contract claims against Plastic Solutions of Texas, Inc., Plastic Solutions Molding, Inc., Kurt H. Ruppman, Sr., and Fairfield Enterprises, Inc. Quick, a certified public accountant, sought royalties based on an agreement related to Ruppman's patented cryogenic technology. The trial court interpreted the "Royalty Revenue Agreement" to limit Quick's interest to licensing income derived from a specific heat-set/barrier blow molding technology process after January 23, 1997, and found no such income. The court also concluded that Quick's breach of contract claim was barred by failure of consideration and prior material breach due to his cessation of services. The Eighth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on all issues, including the contract interpretation and the award of attorney's fees to Fairfield.

Contract lawRoyalty agreementBreach of contractDeclaratory judgmentFailure of considerationPrior material breachAttorney's feesAppellate reviewContract interpretationPatent licensing
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Niu v. Revcor Molded Products Co.

This case concerns an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Xuxian Niu against his former employer, Revcor Molded Products Company, and its Vice President, Rob Knight. Niu, a Chinese American, alleged racial discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and racial harassment after his termination in November 2002. The defendants argued Niu's position was eliminated due to the completion of a manufacturing process and a bleak business forecast. The trial court granted summary judgment for Revcor and Knight on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Revcor provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Niu's termination, which Niu failed to sufficiently rebut as pretextual for either discrimination or retaliation.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentPretextNondiscriminatory ReasonTexas Labor CodeHostile Work EnvironmentAppellate ReviewTermination
References
26
Case No. 2-05-104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2006

Xuxian Niu v. Revcor Molded Products Company and Rob Knight

Xuxian Niu appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Revcor Molded Products Company and Rob Knight in an employment discrimination lawsuit. Niu, a Chinese American, was terminated in November 2002 from his manufacturing engineering manager position, having been hired in March 2001. He alleged racial discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, racial harassment, and retaliation, citing ridicule of his accent and unfair treatment by his supervisors. Revcor and Knight contended Niu's termination was due to the completion of the lean manufacturing process and a negative business forecast for new products. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Revcor established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Niu's termination and Niu failed to raise a fact issue concerning pretext or retaliation.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTexas Labor Code Chapter 21McDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingPretext for DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentAdverse Employment ActionAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Litwack v. Plaza Realty Investors, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by toxic mold in a plaintiff's apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint, and these orders were subsequently affirmed on appeal. The central legal question revolved around whether the defendants' knowledge of a discolored, wet wall and a steam pipe leak constituted sufficient notice of a potential mold hazard. The majority concluded that such knowledge, as a matter of law, did not establish notice of potential mold growth. A dissenting opinion argued that the focus should be on whether defendants had notice of persistent water leaks, from which a hazardous mold condition was foreseeable, citing the plaintiff's repeated complaints and an expert's opinion.

Toxic MoldPersonal InjuryLandlord LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeWater DamageAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessPremises LiabilityEnvironmental Health
References
3
Case No. 2015-05-0342
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2015

Campbell, Beverly v. Century Mold Co., Inc.

Beverly Campbell, an employee of Century Mold Co., Inc., sought medical and temporary disability benefits for back, shoulder, and wrist pain. Her claim, heard at an expedited hearing in Murfreesboro, was denied. The court found that Ms. Campbell failed to demonstrate that her injuries arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment, a requirement under Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law. This decision largely relied on the medical opinion of Dr. James Johnson, an orthopedic specialist, who stated that more than 50% of Ms. Campbell’s pain was due to pre-existing conditions unrelated to work. The court ruled that Dr. Johnson’s opinion carried a rebuttable presumption of correctness, which was not overcome by other medical evidence presented by Ms. Campbell.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsCausationPre-existing ConditionRebuttable PresumptionMedical OpinionBurden of ProofDegenerative Condition
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2006

Quick v. Plastic Solutions of Texas, Inc.

David J. Quick appealed a take-nothing judgment concerning his contract claims against Plastic Solutions of Texas, Inc. (PST), Plastic Solutions Molding, Inc. (PSMI), Kurt H. Ruppman, Sr., and Fairfield Enterprises, Inc. Quick, a certified public accountant, contended he was owed a 3% royalty from a 1997 'Royalty Revenue Agreement' based on 'Net Royalty Income Revenue.' The core dispute involved the interpretation of this term: Quick argued it included manufacturing income, while the defendants asserted it was limited to licensing income from a specific cryogenic technology. The trial court found the agreement ambiguous and ruled in favor of the defendants, concluding the royalty was restricted to licensing income from the specific technology, and no such income was received. Additionally, Quick's breach of contract claim was barred due to failure of consideration and his prior material breach by ceasing to provide services. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all grounds, including the award of attorney's fees to Fairfield.

Contract DisputeRoyalty AgreementLicensing IncomeManufacturing IncomeCryogenic TechnologyPatent RightsBreach of ContractFailure of ConsiderationDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Laurentis v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

This case concerns an insurance-coverage dispute between Christine H. de Laurentis (Policyholder) and United Services Automobile Association (Insurer) regarding mold damage to her apartment. The Policyholder claimed the mold resulted from a leaking air conditioning unit, but the Insurer denied coverage under her renter's insurance policy (HOB-T), stating mold was not a named peril. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the Insurer on all claims. On appeal, the court overruled the Policyholder's motion for rehearing. It reversed and remanded the breach-of-contract claim, concluding the Insurer waived an inventory requirement and that the policy's 'physical loss caused by a peril' language could cover mold damage from a water leak. However, the dismissal of the extracontractual claims was affirmed.

Insurance DisputeMold DamageRenter's InsuranceHOB-T PolicyBreach of ContractExtracontractual ClaimsSummary JudgmentWaiver of Condition PrecedentPolicy InterpretationCausation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lundstrom v. United Services Automobile Ass'n-CIC

The Lundstroms, insured by USAA, experienced continuous water intrusion and subsequent mold growth in their townhome, purchased in 1998. They initially notified the builder, Baker, but did not inform USAA until May 2000, after a severe rainstorm caused significant damage through a hole in the roof. USAA denied coverage for mold damage based on policy exclusions and resolved the initial water damage through a binding appraisal, awarding $4,226.19 ($1,666.19 after the deductible). The Lundstroms had previously settled a lawsuit with Baker for $400,000. They then sued USAA for breach of the insurance contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and unfair insurance practices, arguing that mold damage should be covered under an "ensuing loss" provision due to water damage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of USAA on all claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the mold damage was excluded under the policy, the initial water damage was resolved by appraisal, and the Lundstroms' bad faith and statutory claims failed as a matter of law.

Homeowners insuranceInsurance coverage disputeWater damageMold exclusionEnsuing lossAppraisal clauseBad faith claimDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Unfair insurance practicesSummary judgment
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brothers v. Tyco International, Ltd.

The plaintiffs contracted with ADT for a home security system. During installation, a worker employed by Tyco negligently damaged a waste disposal pipe, leading to a slow leakage and a mold condition in the plaintiffs' house. After recovering over $40,000 from their homeowner’s insurance for remediation expenses, the plaintiffs initiated this action against ADT and Tyco to recover consequential and incidental damages not covered by their insurance, such as those from mold exposure and life disruption. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The court found that the contract between the plaintiffs and ADT contained an unequivocal exculpatory provision, stating the defendants would not be liable for losses due to water intrusion or mold resulting from the security system installation, which the plaintiffs failed to rebut.

home security systemnegligent installationwaste pipe damagemold damageconsequential damagesincidental damagesexculpatory clausecontract disputesummary judgmentproperty damage
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 74 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