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. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blau Mechanical Corp. v. City of New York

This appeal addresses whether contractual delays, for which the plaintiff-respondent sought monetary damages for plumbing work at the New York Zoological Park, were contemplated by the parties' agreement. The court concluded that these delays were indeed contemplated, reversing a prior Supreme Court finding. The contract included a clause barring damages for delay unless caused by intentional wrongdoing, gross negligence, or willful misconduct. The plaintiff alleged delays due to structural changes, unexpected subsurface conditions, and interference from a local community group. However, the court found that the contract explicitly anticipated changes and differing subsurface conditions. Additionally, delays from community group intrusion were not attributable to the City as grossly negligent or intentional, thereby precluding recovery for damages.

Contractual DelaysDamages for DelayContemplated DelaysConstruction ContractPlumbing WorkNew York CityAppellate ReviewSubsurface ConditionsChange OrdersCommunity Interference
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bovis Lend Lease (LMB), Inc. v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

This case involves a contractual dispute between Bovis Lend Lease (LMB), Inc. (Plaintiff), a deconstruction contractor, and Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (LMDC) (Defendant), responsible for redeveloping lower Manhattan after 9/11. Bovis was contracted to deconstruct the Deutsche Bank Building but encountered unforeseen regulatory interference and delays, leading to significant cost overruns. Bovis's amended complaint sought damages for extra work, general conditions, profit, insurance costs, and constructive acceleration. The court ruled that Bovis's claims for extra work due to regulatory interference and damages for delay were barred by the contract's 'no damages for delay' clause and the explicit assumption of regulatory delay risks by Bovis. While some claims were dismissed, others related to amounts due under the original lump sum contract, including overhead, profit, and insurance (excluding fire-related incremental costs), were reinstated after reargument. Ultimately, the court emphasized upholding the clear terms of the contract between sophisticated business entities.

Contractual disputeDeconstruction projectRegulatory interferenceDelay damagesNo damages for delay clauseExtra workConstruction lawAppellate reviewContract interpretationRisk allocation
References
8
Case No. NO. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2017

Noah S. Bunker Paul Carrell Everett Brew Houston, Jr. W. Andrew Buckholz Scott J. Leighty Jad L. Davis And Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

This case concerns an appeal from a declaratory summary judgment regarding a liquidated-damages provision. Appellee Tracy Strandhagen, a physician, sought to declare a $500,000 liquidated-damages clause in an operating agreement with her former medical practice group's advisory board (appellants) an unenforceable penalty. The trial court denied the appellants' plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Strandhagen. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, found that Strandhagen failed to conclusively prove the provision was an unreasonable forecast of just compensation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, while affirming that the claim was ripe for review.

Contract LawLiquidated DamagesSummary Judgment AppealDeclaratory JudgmentContract BreachEmployment AgreementOperating AgreementUnenforceable PenaltyRipeness DoctrineAppellate Review
References
43
Case No. M2008-02844-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2010

Lee Masonry, Inc. v. City of Franklin, Tennessee Stansell Electric Company, Inc. v. City of Franklin, Tennessee

Two trade contractors, Lee Masonry, Inc. and Stansell Electric Company, Inc., sued the City of Franklin for breach of contract, alleging the City failed to prevent delays caused by other contractors and withheld retainages. The City defended by citing a 'no damages for delays' clause, untimely notice of claims, and the contractors' acceptance of time extensions without reserving rights to increased compensation. The trial court found all the City's defenses invalid and awarded damages to the contractors. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding the delays were within the City's control, notice requirements were met or waived, and the executed change orders did not waive the contractors' right to additional compensation. The court upheld the damages awarded for loss of productivity, extended field overhead, and professional fees.

Contract LawConstruction ContractsBreach of ContractDelay DamagesNo Damages for Delay ClauseContractual Notice RequirementsWaiver of Contract TermsChange OrdersAccord and SatisfactionLoss of Productivity Damages
References
30
Case No. 477 F.Supp. 897
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1979

Rheuark v. Shaw

This federal civil rights case addresses constitutional violations stemming from extensive delays in preparing trial transcripts for indigent criminal appellants in Dallas County, Texas. Plaintiffs John Doescher, Robert Allen Jordan, and Jack Rheuark alleged that delays of nine to twenty-three months violated their due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court found these delays unconstitutional, awarding nominal damages to Doescher and Rheuark, and $3,000 in actual damages to Jordan. While denying injunctive relief and punitive damages, the court determined that individual defendants—Judge Metcalf, Dallas County Commissioners, and court reporter Paul Bastas—were immune from personal damage liability due to judicial, legislative, and qualified immunities, respectively. However, Dallas County was held liable for damages and attorneys' fees due to an official policy and custom of inadequately funding court reporters that directly caused the unconstitutional delays, and attorneys' fees were awarded to the plaintiffs against the individual defendants in their official capacities and Dallas County.

Due Process ViolationSpeedy AppealCivil RightsIndigent DefendantsTrial TranscriptsCourt DelaysJudicial ImmunityLegislative ImmunityQualified ImmunityMunicipal Liability
References
99
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Argee Corp. v. Solis

This case involves an appeal concerning a construction contract dispute between Argee Corporation, a general contractor, and Frank Solis d/b/a Allied Steel General Contractors, a subcontractor, over three prison projects in Texas. Both parties appealed various aspects of a jury verdict and the trial court's subsequent judgment, which addressed claims of breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and related damages. The appellate court modified the trial court's judgment by adjusting awarded damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees, specifically deleting an offset granted to Argee and increasing Solis's recovery for additional expenses and injury to credit reputation. It further remanded for new trials on Solis's claims for wrongful conversion of equipment and fraud related to the Woodville project. The court's decision also clarified the unenforceability of "no damages for delay" and wrongful termination clauses due to a lack of fair notice and conspicuousness under Texas law.

Construction ContractBreach of ContractSubcontractor DisputesContractual DamagesDelay DamagesConversion of EquipmentFraudulent InducementPrejudgment InterestAttorney FeesWaiver of Lien
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S.S.D.W. Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co.

The plaintiff, owner of Carnegie Towers, contracted with the defendant waterproofing contractor for corrective work. A fire caused extensive damage to the building, both to the contracted work areas and other parts. The plaintiff's insurer, as subrogee, sued the defendant for negligence to recover its loss. The core legal issue is the interpretation of a subrogation waiver clause in their AIA contract, specifically whether it bars claims for damage to parts of the building not included in "the Work." The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the waiver clause only applies to damages within "the Work" and therefore, the subrogation claim for damages outside "the Work" is not barred. The dissent argued that this interpretation undermines the purpose of the waiver clause and invites further litigation.

SubrogationInsurance Waiver ClauseConstruction ContractProperty DamageNegligenceAIA ContractFire DamageAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationInsurable Interest
References
18
Case No. 02A01-9803-CH-00064
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 1999

White's Electric v. Lewis Constr.

This case involves a dispute between White's Electric, Heating, Air and Plumbing (subcontractor) and Lewis Construction Company (general contractor) and Frontier Insurance Company (surety) regarding a public housing renovation project. White's Plumbing sued for unpaid contract payments and damages for delays. The trial court initially awarded White's Plumbing damages for breach of contract and for disruption and delay. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the breach of contract damages, finding that Lewis Construction breached the contract first. However, the court reversed the award for delay damages, determining that White's Plumbing failed to comply with the notice requirements for such claims outlined in the project manual, which was incorporated by reference into the subcontract. The case was also remanded to clarify the authenticity of the contractor's bond.

Construction LawSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Contractor LiabilitySurety BondBreach of ContractDelay DamagesContractual NoticeIncorporation by ReferencePublic Works ProjectAppellate Review
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 6,501 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