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

Laurence v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Appellant Jeane Laurence sustained $14,325.23 in damages from a hit-and-run accident. Her State Farm automobile policy included both Uninsured Motorist (UM) and Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverages, with limits of $50,000 and $5,000 respectively. After receiving $4,325.23 in PIP benefits, Laurence sought full UM benefits. State Farm invoked a policy provision to offset the PIP payments from the UM benefits to prevent recovery exceeding actual damages. The trial court upheld this PIP offset provision, reducing Laurence's UM payout. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the offset clause was valid under Texas law and public policy, as the insured's actual damages were less than the combined available coverages, thereby preventing an unintended double recovery.

Uninsured Motorist CoveragePersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Insurance Policy OffsetAutomobile InsuranceSummary JudgmentDouble RecoveryStatutory InterpretationCollateral Source RuleAppellate ReviewActual Damages
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Figelman v. Goldfarb

This case involves an appeal by an employer and the State Insurance Fund from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying the Fund's request to offset future workers' compensation benefits against a claimant's third-party settlement proceeds. The claimant, injured in 1988, received a third-party settlement of $225,000 in 1992, after which the Fund sought to offset a $5,520 award for lost earnings during an initial abeyance period (March-August 1988). The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the offset, a ruling upheld by the appellate court. The court reasoned that the $5,520 award constituted "basic economic loss" under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) and was therefore exempt from offset provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (4) due to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1-a). Additionally, the Fund's failure to explicitly reserve its right to offset against this specific award at the time of the third-party settlement further supported the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party SettlementOffset RightsBasic Economic LossInsurance LawAppellate ReviewPermanent Partial DisabilityAutomobile Accident ClaimState Insurance FundWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
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

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Bibb (In Re Delta Air Lines)

Delta Air Lines, Inc., the Debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding against the Government Services Administration, seeking a declaratory judgment to prevent the Government from deducting pre-petition overpayments for services from post-petition amounts owed. Delta argued that such an offset was prohibited by the automatic stay provisions of Sections 362(a)(3) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Government asserted its right to offset under the Transportation Payment Act and the equitable doctrine of recoupment. The court found that the Transportation Payment Act does not create a payment scheme allowing such deductions and that the claims did not arise from a 'single integrated transaction' for equitable recoupment. Therefore, the court concluded that the Government is not entitled to set off its pre-petition claims against its post-petition liabilities, granting Delta's request for declaratory judgment.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic StaySetoffRecoupmentGovernment ContractsTransportation Payment ActDeclaratory JudgmentPre-petition ClaimsPost-petition LiabilitiesCreditor Protection
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Shutter v. Philips Display Components Co.

The claimant, injured in a work-related single-car accident, received workers' compensation benefits and also pursued an uninsured motorist claim, recovering $124,697.95. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the employer's insurance carrier was entitled to offset this recovery against future compensation benefits, overturning a prior WCLJ decision. The claimant appealed, arguing that Workers' Compensation Law § 29's offset provisions apply only to third-party tortfeasor actions, not uninsured motorist proceeds. The court rejected this argument, finding the statute's general terminology encompasses uninsured motorist benefits and that legislative intent for exclusion only exists for no-fault benefits, not uninsured motorist benefits under Insurance Law § 3420 (f). Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed.

Uninsured motoristWorkers' Compensation LawOffsetInsurance carrierThird-party tortfeasorLien provisionsStatutory interpretationLegislative intentNo-fault insuranceCompensation benefits
References
3
Case No. 03-97-00448-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 1999

Jeane Laurence v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

This appeal examines the validity of an automobile insurance policy provision. The provision allows for the reduction of uninsured motorist (UM) benefits by the amount of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits already paid to the insured. Appellant Jeane Laurence argued that this offset provision was invalid and unenforceable under Texas law and public policy, challenging the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The appellate court analyzed relevant Texas Insurance Code statutes and prior case law concerning UM and PIP coverages, particularly regarding the prevention of double recovery. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the offset clause was valid when the insured's actual damages were less than the combined PIP and UM coverages.

Automobile InsuranceUninsured Motorist CoveragePersonal Injury ProtectionPIP OffsetInsurance Policy ValiditySummary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleDouble RecoveryStatutory InterpretationTexas Insurance Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2000

Claim of Martin v. Levest Electric Corp.

The claimant, having suffered work-related injuries, pursued both workers' compensation benefits and a third-party personal injury action, which was subsequently settled. A contention arose concerning the workers' compensation carrier's entitlement to offset future benefits against the net settlement proceeds, as outlined in Workers' Compensation Law § 29. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the carrier had correctly preserved its right to this offset. On appeal, the claimant argued that the carrier had consented to the settlement, thereby waiving its offset right, and that a court possessed the authority to waive such a right. The appellate court upheld the Board's finding, concluding that there was no substantial evidence of carrier consent to the settlement, and reaffirmed that a court cannot override a carrier's explicit reservation of its offset rights.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementOffset RightsCarrier ConsentFuture BenefitsJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionBoard RulingReservation of Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. Vogue Metalcraft, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning the applicability of offset provisions under Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (subd 2-a). The central issue is whether these provisions apply to a widow who is not actively receiving Social Security survivor’s insurance benefits, despite potential eligibility. The Board had ruled that the offset did not apply because the claimant was not actually receiving benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing a strict interpretation of the statutory language 'is receiving' and noting the contrast with other sections that refer to benefits a claimant is 'entitled to receive'. The court concluded that the Board’s construction was not irrational, upholding the agency's interpretation of the statute.

Workers' CompensationSocial Security BenefitsSurvivor's BenefitsStatutory InterpretationOffset ProvisionsLegislative IntentAgency DeferenceAppellate ReviewDeath BenefitsIndustrial Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Ethyl Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee, sought permanent disability benefits under his employer's plan after a back injury. He also received workmen's compensation and Social Security benefits, which the defendant employer attempted to offset against the company plan benefits. The court found that the defendant's Employee Relations Committee acted in bad faith by inconsistently applying and failing to establish clear rules for such offsets. While the offset provision itself was deemed valid, the court concluded that sums designated for attorney's fees and medical expenses from the external benefits could not be considered "income being paid" for offset purposes. The case was consequently remanded, instructing the Committee to promulgate proper rules and re-evaluate the plaintiff's benefits, specifically precluding the offset of attorney's fees and medical expenses.

Disability BenefitsWorkmen's CompensationSocial SecurityOffset ProvisionCollective Bargaining AgreementBad FaithEmployee BenefitsJudicial ReviewTexas LawCollateral Source Rule
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Brown

In this car insurance coverage case, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment in favor of the insured, Jack Brown. The central issue was whether State Farm could offset payments made under the Personal Injury Protection (PIP) clause against payments owed under the Uninsured/Underinsured (UM) motorist clause, according to a policy offset provision. The trial court had concluded that State Farm was not entitled to such an offset. The appellate court examined the policy's offset clause, its validity, and various arguments raised by Brown, including claims of double recovery and statutory interpretation. Concluding that the offset is permissible and the clause valid, the court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Brown and rendered judgment in favor of State Farm.

Car InsuranceUninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoveragePersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Offset ProvisionSummary JudgmentPolicy InterpretationTexas Insurance CodeSubrogationCollateral Source Rule
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,450 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