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

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust

This case involves Ann Rupe, a minority shareholder and trustee for Buddy's Trust, who sued other shareholders and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation (RIC) for alleged oppressive actions and breach of fiduciary duties. Rupe claimed the defendants refused to buy her shares or meet with prospective outside buyers. The trial court ordered a $7.3 million buyout, which the court of appeals affirmed in part, finding the refusal to meet prospective purchasers oppressive, but remanding on valuation. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the defendants' conduct was not 'oppressive' under the Texas receivership statute, as it did not involve an abuse of authority with intent to harm the corporation or create a serious risk of harm to it. The Court clarified that the statute only authorizes the appointment of a rehabilitative receiver and does not permit a direct buyout remedy. Additionally, the Court declined to recognize a new common-law cause of action for 'minority shareholder oppression,' citing existing statutory and common-law protections. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Rupe's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and the potential for a buyout remedy under that claim.

Shareholder OppressionMinority ShareholdersClosely Held CorporationsFiduciary DutyBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate ReceivershipStatutory InterpretationCommon Law ClaimsCorporate GovernanceStock Buyout
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taormina v. International Union

A guard at a nuclear facility was dismissed for failing to make a complete search after an alarm, leading him to sue his local union and its parent international union for breach of their duty of fair representation. The plaintiff alleged the union failed to pursue his grievance to arbitration, claiming an informal custom existed not to conduct complete searches. The court found no evidence of invidious discrimination and noted management's reasonable action given the sensitive nature of nuclear facilities and the plaintiff's undisputed failure to perform required duties. Consequently, the court ruled that the union did not violate its federally imposed duty, and granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Duty of Fair RepresentationCollective BargainingGrievance ArbitrationSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActNuclear Facility SecurityEmployee DismissalUnion's RoleWorkplace SafetyFederal Labor Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler & Binion v. Hartford Lloyd's Insurance Co.

Appellants Butler & Binion, a law firm and several of its partners, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Hartford Lloyd’s Insurance Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company. Butler & Binion had sued the insurers, alleging breach of insurance contracts and duty of good faith for failing to defend and indemnify them in a prior lawsuit brought by Colette Bohatch. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurers, finding no duty to defend or indemnify because Bohatch’s claims of intentional conduct were excluded from coverage under the commercial general liability and workers’ compensation policies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify, and thus, no bad faith claim could be established.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyCommercial General LiabilityWorkers Compensation InsuranceEmployer's Liability InsuranceIntentional Conduct ExclusionBad Faith ClaimSummary Judgment AppealContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc.

Justice Gammage, joined by three other Justices, penned an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part from a majority decision involving Natividad's claims against National Union, an insurance carrier, and Alexsis, its adjusting company. Gammage dissents from the majority's holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing does not extend to Alexsis, arguing that such a duty arises from a "special relationship" created by contract, not necessarily requiring privity. He emphasizes that Alexsis, as the carrier's agent, held exclusive control over Natividad's workers' compensation claims, thus warranting the extension of this duty. While concurring on the dismissal of Natividad's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim due to insufficient "extreme and outrageous conduct," Gammage expresses a desire to revisit the court's stance on negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawGood Faith and Fair DealingSpecial RelationshipAgent LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryEmotional DistressDissenting OpinionInsurance AdjusterClaim Denial
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kehler v. Eudaly

This case, an appeal from a summary judgment, addresses whether Texas law recognizes a cause of action based on a defendant's duty to protect third parties from an actor's criminal conduct. Appellants, including Grace Kehler and Michael Trekell's parents, sued Dr. Harold Eudaly, Dr. John Koechel, and Saint Joseph Hospital for the murders of Michael Trekell and his son Jayson Kehler by James Bigby. Bigby, who had been a patient of the appellees, killed the victims shortly after being discharged from Saint Joseph Hospital and discontinuing treatment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding they owed no legal duty to the victims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Texas law does not impose a "Tarasoff duty" to warn or confine in situations where there is no readily identifiable victim.

Duty to WarnThird-Party LiabilityMental Health CarePhysician-Patient RelationshipForeseeability of HarmSummary Judgment AppealNegligence LawTarasoff DutyMedical MalpracticeWrongful Death
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 4,933 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