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. 01-08-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Thomas Duran D/B/A Duran Ins. Brokerage and Duran Ins. Brokerage, Inc. v. Entrust, Inc.

Tomas Duran, an insurance broker, appealed a trial court's judgment concerning a fee-splitting dispute with Entrust, Inc., a third-party medical benefit plan administrator. The dispute arose from a letter agreement to share "monthly administrative fees" from a City of Corpus Christi contract. Duran claimed a share of "run-out processing" fees paid to Entrust after the contract's extension, but Entrust contended these were not covered by the original agreement. Duran also challenged the venue of the trial court case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding that Duran waived his venue objection and that the run-out fees were distinct from monthly administrative fees, thus not subject to the fee-splitting arrangement.

Contract LawInsurance BrokerageThird-Party AdministratorFee DisputeBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentVenue WaiverAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. 2-04-242-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2007

TXI Transportation Company, Ricardo Reyna Rodriguez, and Aurelio Melendez v. Randy Hughes, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shiloh Hughes Clint Royse, Individually and as Next Friend of Jagr Royse and as Personal Representative for the Estate of Afton Hughes Royse

This case involves a wrongful death and survival action following a collision between a Yukon and a gravel truck. The jury found the gravel truck driver (Rodriguez) negligent, TXI Transportation Company negligent in hiring Rodriguez, and Aurelio Melendez negligent in entrusting the truck to Rodriguez, awarding compensatory and exemplary damages. On appeal, the court addressed issues including the reliability of expert testimony, admission of the driver's immigration status, a Batson challenge, venue, and claims for unborn twins. The appellate court reversed the exemplary damages award, finding no evidence that Rodriguez acted with gross neglect, and reversed the judgment against Melendez due to insufficient evidence of negligent entrustment. The remainder of the trial court's judgment, including the negligence findings against Rodriguez and TXI for negligent hiring, and the compensatory damages, was affirmed.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionAutomobile AccidentTruck AccidentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent EntrustmentProximate CauseExpert TestimonyAccident Reconstruction
References
137
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02530 [160 AD3d 1189]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2018

Perkins v. County of Tompkins

Christopher Perkins was involved in a motorcycle accident after borrowing a motorcycle from his sister, Josephine Hines. Kathleen Perkins, as his guardian, sued Robert Zimmer Sr., whose vehicle Perkins veered away from. Zimmer then filed a third-party action against Hines for negligent entrustment, arguing she should not have loaned Perkins the motorcycle. Hines moved for summary judgment, contending she showed due care and that an injured party cannot claim negligent entrustment against the entrustor, but the Supreme Court denied her motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding Hines' testimony raised a factual question about her knowledge of Perkins' competency to operate the motorcycle and affirming that a third-party claim for contribution or indemnification based on negligent entrustment is valid.

Negligent EntrustmentMotorcycle AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimCompetence of OperatorDriver's LicenseMaterial Question of FactAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. 10-19-00422-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2021

Mary Sue Sauceda v. Quality Motors D/B/A Quality Automotive

This case involves a negligent-entrustment claim against Quality Motors by Mary Sue Sauceda. Sauceda appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Quality Motors, arising from a head-on collision involving a vehicle sold by Quality Motors to Danna Zertuche-Yanez. Sauceda argued that Quality Motors negligently entrusted the vehicle because it retained the certificate of title. The appellate court found that Quality Motors successfully rebutted the presumption of ownership, as it had delivered possession and control of the vehicle to Zertuche-Yanez, retaining only naked legal title as a security interest. Therefore, Quality Motors did not own or control the vehicle at the time of the accident to be held liable for negligent entrustment, and the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

negligent entrustmentcar dealershipsummary judgmentvehicle ownershipsecurity interestcertificate of titleTexas appellate courtmotor vehicle retail installment contracthead-on collisionliability
References
13
Case No. 2-08-132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2009

Elizabeth Santana, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rojelio Santana, and as Next Friend of Diana Santana, Rojelio Santana, Jr., Marissa Santana, Pauline Santana and Frederico Santana v. Arpin America Moving System, LLC and Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc.

Elizabeth Santana appealed the trial court's summary judgments for Arpin America Moving System, LLC (AAMS) and Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc. (PAVL). Her husband, Rojelio Santana, an independent contractor, was killed in a truck accident while an unlicensed "lumper" he hired was driving a vehicle owned by AAMS and leased by PAVL. Santana alleged negligence, negligence per se, res ipsa loquitur, negligent entrustment, and gross negligence against AAMS and PAVL. The court found that Rojelio Santana was an independent contractor and not driving at the time of the accident, and that the "lumpers" were not employees of AAMS or PAVL, rendering Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) doctrines inapplicable. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding no evidence of causation linking any alleged negligence or FMCSR violations by AAMS or PAVL to the accident, nor any basis for negligent entrustment or res ipsa loquitur.

Summary Judgment AppealNegligence Per SeFMCSRStatutory EmployeeVicarious LiabilityNegligent EntrustmentProximate CauseIndependent ContractorWrongful DeathCommercial Vehicle Accident
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shupe v. Lingafelter

This is a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a multi-vehicle accident in 2004. A jury found Joseph Heppler's negligence to be the sole cause, awarding zero damages and absolving Brent Shupe and Midwest Coast Transport (MCT) of liability. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment. The court of appeals reversed, citing the trial court's refusal to include a negligent entrustment instruction against MCT. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' decision, ruling that any error in omitting the instruction was harmless because the jury's finding that Shupe was not negligent logically precluded a negligent entrustment claim against MCT. Consequently, the Supreme Court reinstated the original take-nothing judgment.

Negligent entrustmentJury instructionHarmless errorProximate causePersonal injuryMulti-vehicle accidentTake-nothing judgmentVicarious liabilityAppellate reviewJury verdict
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Mayes

Corte Adams, a Goodyear employee, was involved in a car accident with Patrick Mayes while on a personal errand. Mayes sued Adams for negligence and Goodyear for negligent entrustment and vicarious liability under a respondeat superior theory. The trial court granted summary judgment for Goodyear, which the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case, determining that Adams was not acting within the course and scope of his employment during the accident and that there was insufficient evidence to support the negligent entrustment claim against Goodyear. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment against Mayes.

NegligenceRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityNegligent EntrustmentSummary JudgmentCourse and Scope of EmploymentPersonal ErrandAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityDriver Competence
References
11
Case No. 06-03-00046-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2004

David Durbin, Brenda Davis, Individually, and Brenda Davis, as Next Friend of Brenda Durbin v. City of Winnsboro

The Durbins sued the City of Winnsboro after Jimmy Durbin died in a motorcycle accident during a police pursuit by Officer Tony Browning. The Durbins alleged wrongful death, respondeat superior, and negligent entrustment, claiming Browning purposefully 'bumped' Jimmy's motorcycle. Winnsboro filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment, asserting the claims were barred by the intentional tort exception of the Texas Tort Claims Act. The appellate court clarified that an intentional tort under the Act requires intent to cause injury, not just intent to act. It held that the Durbins' negligence claims for Browning's actions were not barred. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims for negligent entrustment and exemplary damages, which are barred by the Texas Tort Claims Act. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityIntentional Tort ExceptionRespondeat SuperiorNegligent EntrustmentExemplary DamagesPolice PursuitMotor Vehicle AccidentWrongful Death
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 4,712 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