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

Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Steven Gaedecke, an employee of Gulf Offshore Company, sued Mobil Oil Corporation for personal injuries sustained on a vessel during a hurricane evacuation from an offshore platform. Mobil, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Gulf Offshore seeking indemnity based on a contract for well completion operations. The jury found Mobil negligent as a platform operator, but also found Gaedecke's injuries resulted directly or indirectly from Gulf Offshore's work under its contract with Mobil. The trial court granted Mobil indemnity of $900,000 from Gulf Offshore. Gulf Offshore appealed, challenging the Texas state court's jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, alleging fraud and collusion in the verdict, disputing the contractual indemnity terms, and raising issues with jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding state courts have jurisdiction and upholding the indemnity agreement under federal and Louisiana law as surrogate federal law.

Offshore InjuryIndemnity AgreementOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActFederal JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionContractual LiabilityMaritime LawPersonal InjuryNegligenceHurricane Evacuation
References
16
Case No. 01-13-01068-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2015

Diamond Offshore Services Limited and Diamond Offshore Services Company v. Willie David Williams

Diamond Offshore Services Limited and Diamond Offshore Services Company filed a motion for en banc reconsideration in the First Court of Appeals at Houston, Texas, regarding an appeal in a personal injury case. The appellants challenge the trial court's exclusion of a post-incident surveillance video showing appellee Willie David Williams performing physical activities. They argue that this exclusion was harmful error, potentially influencing the jury's substantial damages award of $8.5 million to Williams, who claims total and permanent disability. The motion contends that the exclusion created an unjustified disparity between civil and criminal courts regarding visual evidence admissibility under Rule 403, and seeks a reversal of the judgment and a new trial.

Personal InjurySurveillance Video AdmissibilityRule 403 Balancing TestEvidentiary ExclusionEn Banc ReconsiderationDamages AwardFactual Sufficiency ReviewJones ActUnseaworthiness ClaimTrial Court Discretion
References
27
Case No. 01-13-01068-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2015

Diamond Offshore Services Limited and Diamond Offshore Services Company v. Willie David Williams

This dissenting opinion addresses the exclusion of a surveillance video in a personal injury case where plaintiff Willie David Williams sued Diamond Offshore for an on-the-job back injury. Williams was awarded $8.5 million in damages by a jury, claiming total and permanent disability. Diamond Offshore attempted to introduce a video showing Williams performing physical tasks, arguing its relevance as substantive and impeachment evidence. The trial court, without viewing the video, excluded it, citing unfair prejudice and cumulativeness, a decision affirmed by the majority. The dissenting judge argues that this exclusion was an abuse of discretion, as the video was highly probative to Williams' claims of injury and disability, not unfairly prejudicial, and not cumulative, thus warranting a reversal of the judgment and a new trial.

Surveillance VideoEvidence ExclusionAbuse of DiscretionFair TrialDamages AssessmentPersonal InjuryDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewProbative ValueUnfair Prejudice
References
26
Case No. 01-13-00817-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2015

Hercules Offshore, Inc. and the Hercules Offshore Drilling Company, LLC v. Excell Crane & Hydraulics, Inc.

The appellants, Hercules Offshore, Inc. and The Hercules Offshore Drilling Company, LLC, filed an opposition to Excell Crane & Hydraulics, Inc.'s motion for rehearing. Hercules argues that the court's original ruling correctly applied the Ogea rule, which dictates that an indemnitor's duty to insure its indemnity obligation does not affect the indemnitee's responsibility to obtain additional insured coverage. Hercules contends that Excell's arguments regarding the scope of additional insured coverage, the exclusion of worker's compensation policies, and the reasonableness of the Brunson settlement were either previously rejected or lack merit. Hercules also asserts that Excell is barred from contesting the settlement's reasonableness due to its refusal to defend or indemnify. Therefore, Hercules prays that Excell’s Motion for Rehearing be denied.

Appellate lawContract disputeIndemnificationAdditional insuredOgea ruleBreach of contractInsurance coverageSettlement reasonablenessMotion for rehearingTexas law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Offshore Exploration & Production LLC v. Morgan Stanley Private Bank, N.A.

The plaintiff, Offshore Exploration and Production, LLC (Offshore), initiated an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Morgan Stanley, acting as an Escrow Agent, must release over $75 million from an escrow fund to defendants Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC) and Ecopetrol S.A. An arbitration panel had previously ordered Offshore to pay this amount to KNOC and Ecopetrol. However, KNOC and Ecopetrol argued the payment should come directly from Offshore to preserve the escrow fund for other obligations, contending that this dispute falls under the arbitration clause of their Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA). The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action pending arbitration, while Offshore cross-moved for summary judgment. The court, emphasizing the strong federal policy favoring international arbitration, found that the SPA's broad arbitration clause, which incorporated the American Arbitration Association's International Arbitration Rules, clearly delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitration panel. The court rejected Offshore's arguments that the dispute arose solely under the Escrow Agreement or that a conflict existed between the SPA's mandatory arbitration clause and the Escrow Agreement's permissive forum selection clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action, pending the arbitration panel's decision on arbitrability and the merits, and denied Offshore's motion for summary judgment without prejudice.

ArbitrationInternational ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsDeclaratory JudgmentContract DisputeEscrow AgreementStock Purchase AgreementArbitrabilityForum SelectionFederal Arbitration Act
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilkerson v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc.

Louie Edward Wilkerson, a power plant operator for Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law for severe back injuries sustained in a fall on a drilling platform. The Court determined Wilkerson maintained his seaman status despite his temporary assignment to a fixed platform. Teledyne was found 65% negligent due to unsecured, mud-covered mats, while Wilkerson was 35% contributorily negligent for not observing his footing. The unseaworthiness claim was dismissed as the platform was deemed an artificial island. The Plaintiff was awarded $294,461.15, covering medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and maintenance and cure benefits, adjusted for comparative negligence and prior compensation.

Jones ActMaritime LawSeaman StatusOffshore DrillingPersonal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceUnseaworthiness ClaimMaintenance and CureComparative Fault
References
42
Case No. 18-1134
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2020

W&T Offshore, Inc. v. Wesley Fredieu

Wesley Fredieu, an employee of Wood Group Production Services, Inc., was injured on an offshore oil rig owned by W&T Offshore, Inc. He sued W&T for negligence. W&T claimed Fredieu was a 'borrowed employee' under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), arguing that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The trial court initially agreed with W&T but was reversed by the court of appeals, which reinstated the jury's verdict in Fredieu's favor. The Supreme Court of Texas held that borrowed-employee status is a legal question for the court. However, W&T failed to prove its borrowed-employee defense based on the Ruiz factors and conflicting evidence regarding control. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment and upheld the jury's damages award for future lost earning capacity, remanding for entry of judgment for Fredieu.

Workers' CompensationLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA)Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)Borrowed Employee DoctrineRuiz FactorsAppellate ReviewLegal Question vs. Fact QuestionNegligenceDamagesLost Earning Capacity
References
63
Case No. 01-07-00008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2008

Richard Skains v. Torch Offshore, L.L.C.

Richard Skains, an x-ray technician, was injured while being transported on Torch Offshore, L.L.C.'s vessel. He sued Torch Offshore, L.L.C. for negligence under general maritime law, among other claims. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment after a jury found neither party negligent. Skains appealed, arguing that the evidence was factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that Torch was not negligent. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Skains failed to preserve his factual sufficiency complaint by not asserting it in his motion for new trial.

Maritime LawNegligence ClaimFactual SufficiencyAppellate ProcedurePreservation of ErrorJury FindingTake-Nothing JudgmentTexas Court of AppealsJones ActLHWCA
References
1
Case No. 14-16-00511-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2018

Wesley Fredieu v. W&T Offshore, Inc.

Wesley Fredieu appealed a take-nothing judgment after a jury found W&T Offshore Inc.'s negligence caused his injury on an offshore platform and awarded him over $1.7 million, also finding he was not a 'borrowed employee'. The trial court disregarded the jury's finding, determining Fredieu was a borrowed employee as a matter of law, which barred his tort claims under the LHWCA. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, stating that disputed fact issues on borrowed employee status precluded a matter-of-law determination. The court concluded that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's original 'No' answer and also upheld the jury's award for future lost earning capacity.

Borrowed Employee DoctrineLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActOffshore Platform InjuryNegligenceJury VerdictTake-Nothing JudgmentAppellate ReviewFact IssuesLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFuture Lost Earning Capacity
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

W & T Offshore, Inc. v. Apache Corp.

W & T Offshore, Inc. (WTI) sued Apache Corporation, alleging breach of a Production Handling Agreement (PHA) and various state-law torts related to the misallocation of oil from offshore platforms. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act (OCSLA). Apache moved to dismiss WTI's second amended complaint. The court determined that Louisiana law applies as surrogate federal law under OCSLA. The court granted Apache's motion to dismiss with prejudice WTI's claims for conversion, negligent misrepresentation, and gross negligence, finding them time-barred under Louisiana's one-year prescriptive period. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss WTI's fraud claim, as factual questions remained regarding whether WTI could have reasonably known about the alleged fraudulent concealment earlier. The court also denied dismissal of requests for estoppel, attorney's fees, and exemplary damages, classifying them as remedies rather than separate claims.

Oil ProductionOffshore PlatformsProduction Handling AgreementOCSLALouisiana LawTexas LawBreach of ContractFraudNegligenceConversion
References
69
Showing 1-10 of 167 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