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

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Phillips-Dupre Hospital

The case revolves around a venue dispute in Hockley County, Texas, under Exception 28 to Article 1995, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes. Phillips-Dupre Hospital (appellee) sued Home Life and Accident Insurance Company (appellant) for nonpayment of medical services provided to Mexican Nationals, who were insured under a policy issued by Home Life to Texas Producers Cooperative, Inc. The core issue was whether Phillips-Dupre Hospital qualified as a "beneficiary" under the insurance policy, which would allow the suit to be heard in Hockley County. The court analyzed the policy terms, finding that it stipulated payments for medical expenses were to be made directly to the service provider, effectively designating the hospital as a beneficiary when Mexican Nationals received treatment there. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling the appellant's point of error regarding venue.

Venue DisputeInsurance Policy InterpretationBeneficiary RightsMexican NationalsMigrant Labor AgreementTexas Civil StatutesMedical Services PaymentContract LawAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capps v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp.

The plaintiff, C. C. Capps, doing business as “C & C Drilling Company”, filed a lawsuit against General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., alleging wrongful failure to issue a workmen’s compensation insurance policy. Capps required the policy to secure a lucrative contract for drilling an oil well, but the defendant declined coverage due to the perceived high risk of oil field operations. After being rejected by other insurance providers, Capps lost the drilling contract. The court determined that the defendant wrongfully refused to issue the insurance, thereby preventing Capps from fulfilling his contract and suffering financial loss. The court awarded Capps $2,500 in damages.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance LawWrongful Refusal to InsureDamages CalculationSpeculative DamagesDuty to MitigateEmployer LiabilityTexas LawOil Well Drilling IndustryInsurance Carrier Obligations
References
12
Case No. W2008-01771-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2011

Shelby County Health Care Corporation, d/b/a Regional Medical Center v. John Baumgartner, Elizabeth Baumgartner, a/k/a Daray Baumgartner, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, and Hartford Accident and Indemnity

This appeal concerns the impairment of a hospital lien by Shelby County Health Care Corporation (The MED) against John Baumgartner and his insurance providers, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity. Mr. Baumgartner received extensive medical treatment at The MED following an automobile accident, incurring over $500,000 in expenses, for which The MED filed a hospital lien. Subsequently, Nationwide and Hartford settled with the Baumgartners, paying out policy limits of $25,000 and $100,000 respectively, without remitting any funds to The MED. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgment, finding impairment of the lien and awarding damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of lien impairment but reversed the damage awards, concluding that The MED's recovery is limited to one-third of the amounts the insurers paid to the Baumgartners, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

Hospital Lien ActInsurance LawAutomobile AccidentSubrogationMade-Whole DoctrineStatutory InterpretationDamages for ImpairmentConstructive NoticeMedical ExpensesSettlement Agreements
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aubry v. General Accident Insurance

Aubry Transportation, Inc. hired Wayne Felts to perform welding work, during which Donald Aubry's son lost consciousness due to poisonous fumes, and Aubry subsequently suffered a fatal heart attack. The administratrix of Aubry's estate sued Aubry Transportation, Inc. for negligence. General Accident Insurance, the corporation's insurer, disclaimed coverage and refused to defend, citing policy exclusions for employee injury in the course of employment and obligations under the Workers’ Compensation Law, along with a failure to give prompt notice. The plaintiff then initiated an action seeking a declaration that General Accident had a duty to defend. General Accident appealed from an order denying its motion for summary judgment, with a dissenting opinion arguing that summary judgment should have been granted due to the clear applicability of policy exclusions and the lack of coverage.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionsSummary Judgment AppealEmployer NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusionLate Notice ClaimDeclaratory Relief ActionWrongful DeathWelding Accident
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1950

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Christensen

O. L. Christensen filed two consolidated suits after losing his right eye: one for common-law damages against Q. J. Aaberg and Passmore, and another for workmen's compensation against Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Aaberg's insurer. The core dispute was whether Aaberg's workmen's compensation policy with Hartford covered Christensen, especially as Aaberg claimed he did not intend to cover employees in the specific welding shop where Christensen was injured. The trial court and Court of Civil Appeals initially found coverage, but the Supreme Court of Texas reversed this, ruling that Aaberg did not contract with Hartford to provide compensation coverage for Christensen's employment. Consequently, the judgment in the compensation suit was rendered in favor of Hartford, and Christensen's common-law action for damages was remanded to the trial court.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoverageEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorCommon-Law DamagesConsolidated CasesEmployer LiabilityEye InjuryTexas LawPolicy Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1993

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Buckland

This case involves Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company appealing a trial court's judgment in favor of the Buckland family. Hartford, a workers' compensation insurer, had issued a policy to Fish Engineering and Construction, Inc. and waived its subrogation rights against Phillips Petroleum and Phillips 66 by contract. Buckland, an injured employee of Fish, received a $3.2 million settlement from Phillips Petroleum and Phillips 66 and a $75,000 settlement from Figgie. Hartford sought a credit for future benefit payments from the Phillips settlement and disputed the award of attorney's fees to Buckland's attorney from the Figgie settlement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Hartford's waiver of subrogation rights also waived its right to future credits and upheld the attorney's fee award to Buckland's attorney, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverAttorney's Fees ApportionmentContractual InterpretationFuture Benefit CreditSummary Judgment ReviewAbuse of Discretion StandardTexas Workers' Compensation ActThird-Party LiabilityInsurance Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salameh v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

Dr. Raja N. Salameh, a urologist, sued Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company for denying disability benefits after a fall. The court determined that Salameh's disability policy was part of an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan due to the involvement of another physician, Dr. Gary Hurwitz, as an employee of Salameh's practice, Urology Associates. This finding negated the "safe-harbor" exemption from ERISA coverage, and Salameh, despite being a partner, had standing as a plan beneficiary. Consequently, all his state law claims under the Texas Insurance Code were preempted by ERISA, establishing ERISA as his exclusive remedy. Furthermore, the court ruled that Salameh was not entitled to a jury trial because ERISA claims are considered equitable in nature.

ERISADisability InsuranceERISA PreemptionJury TrialEmployee BenefitsIndependent ContractorPartnershipTexas Insurance CodeFederal Common LawWelfare Benefit Plan
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catania v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

This case involves a submitted controversy under sections 546 to 548 of the Civil Practice Act, concerning whether a liability policy issued to John Schiro extends coverage to the plaintiff for injuries sustained by Schiro's wife. Schiro's wife alleged negligence against her spouse in the operation of his vehicle during his employment with the plaintiff. The court analyzed Insurance Law section 167 (subd. 3), which states that policies do not cover liability for spousal injuries unless expressly provided. Citing Morgan v. Greater New York Taxpayers Mut. Ins. Assn., the court treated the policy as if issued to the plaintiff alone, determining that Schiro's wife is not the plaintiff's spouse, thus making section 167 (subd. 3) inapplicable. The decision, supported by Manhattan Cas. Co. v. Cholakis, concluded that the insurer is liable. Therefore, judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to defend the pending negligence action and pay any judgment up to the policy limits.

Liability PolicyInsurance CoverageSpousal LiabilityCivil Practice ActInsurance LawNegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentAutomobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityInterspousal Immunity
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Associated Indemnity Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, a workmen's compensation insurer for a temporary labor contractor (Greene's Temporaries, Inc.), sued Associated Indemnity Company, the insurer for a customer (Frito-Lay Company), seeking subrogation for a compensation claim paid to an injured temporary employee. Hartford contended the loss was covered by Associated's policy as the employee was under Frito-Lay's control. The court reversed the trial court's decision in favor of Hartford, denying equitable subrogation. The appellate court found that Hartford had collected premiums for the temporary employees and was charged with knowledge of the contractual arrangement, thus preventing unjust enrichment if subrogation were granted.

Workmen's CompensationTemporary EmploymentSubrogationInsurance LawBorrowed Servant DoctrineRight of ControlEquitable RemediesUnjust EnrichmentInsurance PremiumsContractual Agreements
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 6,637 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