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

National Foods, Inc. v. Rubin

Plaintiff National Foods, Inc. ("Hebrew National") filed a civil rights action against Rabbi Rubin, Director of the Kosher Law Enforcement Division of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Hebrew National alleged abuse of state investigatory powers, claiming violations of the due process, establishment, free speech, and commerce clauses, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The complaint detailed events including a 1985 inspection, a subsequent altered report, a 1987 fine, public statements by Rubin, and a 1989 subpoena related to Hebrew National's Indianapolis plant. Defendant Rubin moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the allegations amounted to a state tort defamation claim. The court granted Rubin's motion, finding that Hebrew National failed to allege actionable constitutional deprivations under the "reputation-plus" standard for due process claims, presented no facts suggesting a theological dispute for the establishment clause claim, offered conclusory allegations for the free speech claim, and did not demonstrate a substantial burden on interstate commerce for the commerce clause claim.

Civil Rights Action42 U.S.C. § 1983Due Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentCommerce ClauseEstablishment ClauseFree Speech ClauseMotion to DismissConstitutional LawState Official Liability
References
16
Case No. 04-25-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company v. Javier A. Libson, Nosbil, Inc., Jose Luis Ramirez, Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company

Appellants Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company appealed a no-evidence summary judgment. Cantu's claims of negligence per se, negligent hiring, training, retention, and negligent entrustment were affirmed. However, the summary judgment for Cantu's ordinary negligence claims was reversed and remanded. Additionally, the judgment favoring the insurance defendants (Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company) was also reversed, as their motion for summary judgment was not properly heard. The case involved a collision between Cantu and Jose Luis Ramirez, an employee of Nosbil, Inc., in foggy conditions, leading to Cantu suing for negligence and insurance claims.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseDuty of CareBreach of DutyCausationInsurance ClaimsVicarious Liability
References
36
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

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Pennzoil Co.

In this worker's compensation insurance case, National Union, an insurance carrier for Four Flags Drilling Company, intervened in an underlying negligence suit filed by injured employee David Pfeifer against Pennzoil and other third parties. National Union sought to assert its subrogation rights for worker's compensation benefits paid. Pennzoil moved to strike the intervention, arguing National Union had waived its subrogation rights via a Certificate of Insurance. The trial court granted Pennzoil's motion to strike and sever. On appeal, National Union contended the trial court erred procedurally and evidentiarily in striking its intervention. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the waiver of subrogation clause in the certificate unambiguous and enforceable against Pennzoil. The court, however, could not definitively rule on National Union's claims against other defendants due to an insufficient record regarding their status in the underlying suit.

worker's compensationsubrogation rightsinterventionwaiverinsurance lawcivil procedureappellate reviewTexas lawmotion to strikeseverance
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 1995

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. State Insurance Fund

Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union) initiated a declaratory judgment action against The State Insurance Fund (SIF) to recover defense and settlement costs. These costs were expended on behalf of Regional Scaffolding and Hoisting Co., Inc., a mutually insured party in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court initially denied National Union's motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of SIF. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the antisubrogation rule did not apply in this context. Consequently, it determined that National Union and SIF were co-insurers for Regional Scaffolding's common-law liability. The court granted National Union's motion for summary judgment in part, declaring SIF's duty to reimburse National Union for one-half of the reasonable settlement and defense costs, and remanded for a trial to ascertain these amounts.

Antisubrogation RuleDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeCo-Insurer LiabilityDefense Costs ReimbursementSettlement CostsEmployer's LiabilityComprehensive General LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
8
Case No. 01-10-00711-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2011

Lexington Insurance Company v. National Oil Well Varco, Inc. and Fiber Glass Systems, L. P.

Lexington Insurance Company (Lexington) brought a suit seeking a declaration of rights and duties under an insurance policy regarding an underlying lawsuit where Albemarle Corporation sued National Oilwell NOV, Inc. (National) for defective fiberglass downhole tubing. Lexington had initially acknowledged a duty to defend National after its self-insured retention (SIR) was exhausted. However, after the underlying case settled, Lexington contested its duty to defend and indemnify, and also claimed National failed to provide timely notice of SIR exhaustion. The trial court granted summary judgment in National's favor, finding Lexington had a duty to defend and was liable for defense costs. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Albemarle's claims potentially encompassed covered property damage beyond the defective product itself and that Lexington's unilateral request for SIR exhaustion notice did not create an additional duty for National.

Insurance DisputeDuty to DefendProducts LiabilitySelf-Insured RetentionCommercial General Liability PolicyPolicy ExclusionsProperty DamageSummary Judgment ReviewContract InterpretationTexas Insurance Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NECA Ins., Ltd. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.

Plaintiff NIL Insurance Ltd., a reinsurance company, initiated a diversity action against National Union Fire Insurance Co. and Buchanan Management Company. NIL sought recovery for moneys paid in connection with a personal injury settlement by National Union and punitive damages, alleging negligence, bad faith, and breach of contract related to settlement discussions and payment. National Union and Buchanan moved to compel arbitration of these claims. The court granted National Union's motion, finding that the reinsurance agreement's arbitration clause broadly covered all disputes, including those concerning negligence and recklessness, which could be established within arbitration. The action was dismissed without prejudice, pending the outcome of the arbitration.

ReinsuranceArbitration ClauseContract InterpretationNegligence ClaimsBad FaithBreach of ContractSettlement DisputesFederal JurisdictionMotion to Compel ArbitrationDismissal Without Prejudice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 1987

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. American National Petroleum Co. Ex Rel. Oil Investments, Ltd.

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line, Inc. (TRANSCO) appealed a judgment favoring American National Petroleum Co. (ANPC) and Oil Investments, Ltd. (Oil Investments) concerning breaches of gas purchase contracts and tortious interference. The appellate court reformed the trial court's judgment. It deleted a $16 million award for exemplary damages due to the lack of a finding of actual tort damages, and adjusted other contract damages, restoring jury findings for minimum-take obligations. Awards from a post-judgment contempt order were also deleted. The court dismissed portions of TRANSCO's appeal related to a temporary injunction for jurisdictional reasons and severed the attorney's fees award, remanding it for a rehearing to properly segregate fees for contract and tort claims. The permanent injunction was also modified by deleting price-related provisions, as these were governed by contractual sole remedy clauses.

Oil and Gas LawContract LawBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceExemplary DamagesAttorney's FeesMarket-Out ClauseTake-or-Pay ContractGas Balancing AgreementAppellate Review
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. American Re-Insurance Co.

The case revolves around a dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company and American Re-Insurance Company regarding a pollution exclusion clause in a reinsurance policy. National Union sought reimbursement from American Re after settling claims where employees were exposed to metalworking fluids. American Re denied coverage, arguing its pollution exclusion applied. The court, applying Ohio law, found American Re's pollution exclusion ambiguous due to its broad language and its intended purpose of covering environmental contamination. Consequently, American Re's motion for summary judgment was denied, and National Union's motion to strike American Re's defense was granted, requiring American Re to "follow the fortunes" of National Union.

ReinsurancePollution Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationFollow the Fortunes DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAmbiguity in ContractsOhio State LawDiversity JurisdictionIndustrial Contamination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance v. Puget Plastics Corp.

National Union filed a declaratory judgment action against its insureds, Arctic Slope and Puget, seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify for a judgment stemming from a state case brought by Microtherm. The underlying state case resulted in a significant judgment against Puget for defects in plastic water chambers it molded for Microtherm, and Microtherm subsequently became an assignee of Puget's rights under the National Union policy. The court addressed several issues, including whether National Union breached its duty to defend/indemnify, the nature of the settlement, and whether the damages arose from an 'occurrence' under the policy. The court found that while Puget did not intend injury, it was 'highly probable' that its deliberate use of substandard molding practices would cause harm, thus ruling it was not an 'occurrence' under the policy. Furthermore, the court determined that the damages from the underlying case comprised both covered and uncovered losses, and the insureds (now Microtherm as assignee) failed to provide a reasonable basis to allocate these damages. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of National Union, denying coverage and the counterclaims.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentDuty to IndemnifyDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionsProperty DamageOccurrence DefinitionTexas LawBreach of ContractSettlement Agreement
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 6,030 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