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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
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. M1998-00934-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2001

Wade Cummins v. Opryland Productions

This case involves an alleged breach of an oral contract and a claim of negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs, an Elvis impersonator and his band, claimed Opryland Productions failed to honor an oral agreement to book them for the 1996 Summer Olympics, despite no written contract being executed. They also alleged negligent misrepresentation based on assurances from Opryland's agent. The trial court granted summary judgment for Opryland. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on the contract claim, finding no mutual assent or sufficiently definite terms, but reversed the summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim, noting that contractual privity is not required for this tort and disputed facts exist regarding faulty information and justifiable reliance.

Contract LawOral ContractNegligent MisrepresentationSummary JudgmentMutual AssentBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewTort LawCommercial TransactionsElvis Impersonator
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Canas v. Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp.

Justice Christopher partially concurs and partially dissents from Chief Justice Frost's and Justice Jamison's opinions regarding CenterPoint's liability limitations under its tariff. She agrees that the tariff limits liability for negligence and strict liability but disagrees with aspects of Frost's analysis. Christopher concurs with remanding the intentional misrepresentation claim but believes negligent misrepresentation should be affirmed. She disagrees with Frost's disposition of the gross-negligence claim, arguing the entire issue should be remanded, emphasizing that tariff limitations for gross negligence and willful misconduct are against public policy and unenforceable. Christopher agrees that negligence per se claims don't survive tariff limitations but challenges Frost's reasoning, asserting that the tariff must yield to conflicting federal or state statutes or regulations. However, she ultimately finds no actual conflict between the tariff's liability limitation and the cited regulations, concluding that the elimination of liability for negligence per se is valid.

Tariff Liability LimitationsNegligence ClaimsStrict Liability ClaimsGross NegligenceMisrepresentation ClaimsNegligence Per SePublic PolicyPre-Injury ReleasesSummary JudgmentConcurring and Dissenting Opinion
References
22
Case No. 01-02-00690-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2004

Carousel's Creamery, L.L.C. v. Marble Slab Creamery. Inc.

Carousel’s Creamery, L.L.C. appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Marble Slab Creamery, Inc. Carousel initially sued Marble Slab for violations of the DTPA, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, alleging that Marble Slab's Uniform Franchise Operating Circular (UFOC) contained misleading financial representations regarding its company-owned stores, upon which Carousel relied to its detriment. Marble Slab counterclaimed for breach of contract. The trial court granted a directed verdict against Carousel on the negligent misrepresentation claim, and the jury subsequently found against Carousel on its fraud and DTPA claims, also finding Carousel liable for breach of contract. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed and remanded the negligent misrepresentation claim and the question of whether Carousel's failure to comply with the franchise agreement was excused, while affirming the judgment in all other respects.

FranchisingMisrepresentationFraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of ContractDirected VerdictJury ChargeFactual SufficiencyTexas Court of AppealsBusiness Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 1997

Riley v. Champion International Corp.

This case involves a lawsuit brought by Charles and Helen Riley against Champion International Corporation. Charles Riley, an independent logging contractor, contracted Lyme disease from a tick bite on Champion's property. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract for Champion's failure to warn about Lyme disease, and Helen Riley claimed loss of consortium and household services. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment on most tort claims but denying it for breach of contract. The Chief Judge adopted parts of this, affirming summary judgment on premises liability and misrepresentation negligence claims. However, the Chief Judge overruled the Magistrate Judge's conclusion on the "increased risk of harm" prong of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Champion's failure to provide safety information increased the risk of developing a chronic Lyme infection. Consequently, claims for breach of contract, negligent performance, gross negligence, loss of consortium, loss of household services, and punitive damages were revived for trial.

NegligenceBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLyme DiseaseIndependent ContractorDuty to WarnAssumed DutyGross NegligenceLoss of Consortium
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Naughright v. Weiss

Plaintiff Jamie A. Naughright sued Donna Karan Weiss, Urban Zen, LLC, and Stephen M. Robbins for negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraud, medical malpractice, battery, and failure to obtain consent. Naughright alleged she suffered severe injuries from "healing services" provided by Robbins, an unlicensed practitioner, whom the Karan Defendants had promoted as a qualified physician. The court granted the motion to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim against the Karan Defendants and dismissed part of the fraud claim against Robbins due to insufficient pleading of time and place. However, the claims for negligence, medical malpractice, battery, and failure to obtain consent against Robbins were allowed to proceed.

Motion to DismissNegligent MisrepresentationNegligenceFraudMedical MalpracticeBatteryLack of Informed ConsentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedurePersonal InjuryUnlicensed Practitioner
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fagan Holdings, Inc. v. Thinkware, Inc.

Plaintiff Fagan Holdings, Inc. sued Defendant Thinkware, Inc. for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation regarding a software licensing agreement. Fagan alleged that Thinkware's Darwin software failed to perform as promised and that customer support was inadequate. The court applied Ohio law to the contract claim and Texas law to the tort claims. The court granted Thinkware's motion for summary judgment on the claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the product support services section of the agreement. However, summary judgment was denied for the breach of express warranty claim and the indemnification claim, as genuine issues of material fact remained.

Breach of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligent MisrepresentationSummary JudgmentSoftware Licensing AgreementChoice of LawExpress WarrantyIndemnificationOhio LawTexas Law
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 5,207 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