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

Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas v. Kidd

This case addresses whether an insured can recover the same loss under both uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) and personal injury protection (PIP) coverages of a standard automobile insurance policy in Texas. The Supreme Court consolidated two cases, Kidd and Gerlich, where lower courts refused to enforce a policy provision barring duplication of UM and PIP benefits. The Court held that a non-duplication-of-PIP-benefits provision is valid and enforceable, reversing the judgments of the courts of appeals. The decision clarifies that this offset provision prevents double recoveries, rather than reducing UM/UIM policy limits or causing insureds to recover less than actual damages, and is consistent with Texas statutes and common law.

Automobile InsuranceUninsured/Underinsured MotoristPersonal Injury ProtectionInsurance Policy InterpretationDouble RecoveryNon-Duplication ClauseCollateral Source RuleStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawPolicy Offsets
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
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

OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis

OTG Management, LLC, a provider of airport food and beverage services, sought a preliminary injunction against its former operations manager, Aris Konstantinidis, and competitor SSP America, Inc. OTG alleged Konstantinidis breached non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure agreements by joining SSP. The court, presided by Shirley Werner Kornreich, J., partially granted the injunction. It found the non-compete clause unenforceable, citing Konstantinidis's non-unique services and the arbitrable nature of trade secret claims. However, the non-recruitment clause was deemed reasonable and enforceable, prohibiting Konstantinidis from soliciting OTG employees until April 18, 2015. The court denied the non-compete injunction and stayed the tortious interference claim against SSP, pending arbitration between OTG and Konstantinidis.

Preliminary InjunctionNon-Compete ClauseNon-Solicitation ClauseTrade SecretsRestrictive CovenantsBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceArbitrationEmployment AgreementAirport Services
References
10
Case No. 11-23-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2024

Michael Boucher v. Warrior Crane Service, LLC

This is an accelerated appeal concerning the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Michael Boucher, a former employee, sought to compel arbitration of claims brought against him by his former employer, Warrior Crane Service, LLC, for alleged breaches of his employment agreement, including violations of non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. Boucher argued that an arbitration clause in Warrior's employee handbook constituted a binding agreement. The trial court denied Boucher's motion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the arbitration clause was not a binding contract due to explicit disclaimers in the employee handbook stating it was not a contract, and a lack of sufficient consideration, as Warrior could unilaterally modify the clause.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment LawContract DisputeJudicial EstoppelQuasi-EstoppelEmployee HandbookCovenant Not to CompeteNon-Solicitation ClauseContractual ConsiderationAppellate Procedure
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evolution Online Systems, Inc. v. Koninklijke Nederland N.V.

This case, on remand from the Second Circuit, involves claims of breach of contract, copyright infringement, and quantum meruit. The Court had previously dismissed the complaint, citing a forum-selection clause mandating litigation in the Netherlands. The Second Circuit remanded to clarify whether a contract with such a clause existed and if it should be enforced, or if dismissal was appropriate on forum non conveniens grounds. The District Court affirmed that a binding contract with a mandatory Netherlands forum-selection clause existed and should be enforced due to significant partial performance and mutual intent to be bound, despite the lack of a signed document. The court also determined that even without the clause, the case would be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens, as the Netherlands offers an adequate alternative forum and is more convenient based on public and private interest factors, including the location of proof and the applicability of Dutch law.

Contract disputeCopyright infringementQuantum meruitForum-selection clauseForum non conveniensInternational litigationDutch lawNew York lawSecond Circuit remandBreach of contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lischinskaya v. Carnival Corp.

A plaintiff, injured on a Carnival Cruise Lines ship in January 2005, commenced an action for damages. Carnival moved to dismiss based on a forum selection clause in the passenger contract, which stipulated litigation in federal court in Miami or a Miami-Dade County court. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the court affirmed the enforceability of the forum selection clause, rejecting arguments of waiver and non-reasonable communication. It clarified that such clauses do not divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction, correcting the Supreme Court's reasoning. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, denying the plaintiff's request for equitable relief under CPLR 327 (forum non conveniens), reasoning that such discretionary relief is inapplicable when dismissal is a contractual mandate rather than a discretionary decision.

Forum Selection ClauseCruise Ship ContractMaritime LawSubject Matter JurisdictionSaving to Suitors ClauseCPLR 327Forum Non ConveniensContractual EnforcementWaiver of DefenseAppellate Review
References
59
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

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Business MacHines Corp. v. HARRYSSON

International Business Machines (IBM) filed suit against former senior executive Anders Harrysson to enforce a forfeiture clause related to his incentive stock options. Harrysson, a Swedish national, left IBM and, within six months of exercising his options, began working for a competitor, Sun Microsystems. IBM sought to reclaim the gains from his stock options. Harrysson moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing that a U.S. judgment would not be enforceable in Sweden, where all his assets are located. The court denied the defendant's motion, ruling that Harrysson had previously agreed to exclusive jurisdiction in New York courts and that IBM was willing to accept the risk of enforceability. The court noted that the balance of public and private interest factors favored retaining U.S. jurisdiction, especially given the potential for Harrysson to acquire U.S. assets in the future.

Stock OptionsForfeiture ClauseForum Non ConveniensJurisdictionContract EnforcementEmployment AgreementRestrictive CovenantInternational DisputeChoice of ForumExecutive Compensation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,679 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