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. 05-21-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

Murphy Oil USA, Inc. D/B/A Murphy Oil USA 7350 v. Donnetta Stegall

Donnetta Stegall, an employee of Murphy Oil USA, Inc., sued her employer for premises liability after falling in the store's parking lot and injuring her ankle before her scheduled shift. Murphy Oil appealed the trial court's judgment in Stegall's favor, asserting that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA) provided the exclusive remedy, thereby barring Stegall's common law claim. The central legal question was whether Stegall's injury occurred within the "course and scope of employment," which would activate the TWCA's exclusive remedy provision, specifically considering the "going-to-and-from-work" exclusion and the "access doctrine" exception. The appellate court determined that the "access doctrine" did not apply because the parking lot was accessible to the general public, not exclusively designated for employees. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Stegall's injury was not work-related under the TWCA, and thus the exclusive remedy provision did not preclude her premises liability claim.

Premises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionCourse and Scope of EmploymentAccess DoctrineGoing-to-and-from-work RuleEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 01-21-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, L.P. v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.

This is an insurance subrogation case where Gemini Insurance Company, on behalf of its insured Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. (Carrizo), sued GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, L.P. (GE) for damages from a well blowout. Carrizo alleged negligence, breach of contract, product liability, and breach of warranty. GE counterclaimed for Carrizo's negligence and indemnification. A jury found both parties negligent, but the trial court later disregarded Carrizo's negligence finding and awarded Carrizo over $2.5 million. On appeal, GE challenged Carrizo's standing, the disregard of the jury's verdict, and the enforceability of indemnity provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding Carrizo had standing, GE failed to provide necessary expert testimony for Carrizo's negligence, and the indemnity clauses were unenforceable due to lack of signatory authority.

Oil and GasWell BlowoutNegligenceBreach of ContractProduct LiabilityBreach of WarrantyInsurance SubrogationIndemnity ClauseFair Notice RuleExpress Negligence
References
71
Case No. 01–04–01277–CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Zapata County and Zapata Independent School District v. Conocophillips Company on Its Own Behalf and as Successor–by–merger to Conoco Inc. (f/K/A Continental Oil Company, Inc.) Brandywine Industrial Gas, Inc. Phillips Petroleum Company El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

This opinion consolidates 19 separate suits filed by various Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud through schemes to undervalue oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial courts granted the Oil Companies' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the cases because the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Tax Code provides the exclusive means for addressing such claims, establishing a pervasive regulatory scheme through the Appraisal Review Board, and offering remedies like challenging valuations or back-appraising omitted property. The court held that the Taxing Units cannot bypass the comprehensive statutory scheme by recharacterizing tax disputes as common-law fraud cases.

Ad Valorem TaxProperty ValuationTax FraudAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeAppraisal Review BoardOil and Gas TaxationMineral InterestsExhaustion of Remedies
References
14
Case No. 01-02-00449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2003

Continental Casualty Co. v. Fina Oil and Chemical Co.

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance policy dispute between Continental Casualty Company (Continental) and Fina Oil & Chemical Company (Fina). Continental appealed a trial court's judgment that declared Fina an additional insured under a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Continental to A&B Builders, Inc., and awarded Fina damages for breach of contract. Fina cross-appealed the trial court's determination that Continental did not waive its right to subrogation. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the judgment, holding that Fina was not an additional insured on the date of the injury as there was no written contract explicitly requiring such coverage. The court also found that even if Fina were an additional insured, coverage for liability arising from Fina's own acts was excluded, and that Continental did not waive its subrogation rights. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment that Fina take nothing by way of its suit against Continental.

Insurance Policy DisputeAdditional InsuredBreach of ContractSubrogation RightsSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationCommercial General LiabilityWorker's Compensation BenefitsTexas Appellate LawNegligence Exclusion
References
10
Case No. Nos. 01-04-01277-CV to 01-04-01287-CV; 01-04-01326-CV to 01-04-01333-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Jim Wells County v. EL PASO PRODUCTION OIL

This case involves multiple Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) alleging fraud and conspiracy against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units claimed the Oil Companies undervalued oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes through various manipulative schemes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial court dismissed the lawsuits due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies available under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Tax Code provides a comprehensive and exclusive regulatory scheme for addressing property appraisal disputes, including those involving alleged fraud, through the Appraisal Review Board, thereby divesting district courts of original jurisdiction.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxOil & GasFraudConspiracyUndervaluationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesAppraisal Review BoardTax Code
References
17
Case No. 06-00061-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2015

A.J.P. Oil Company, LLC D/B/A Grapeland Fuel & BBQ, and Andrew J. Patton v. Velvin Oil Company, Inc.

Appellants (A.J.P. Oil Company, LLC, and Andrew J. Patton) appeal a summary judgment of $32,676.71 plus interest and fees, and the subsequent denial of their motion for new trial, in a suit brought by Velvin Oil Company, Inc. The core dispute stems from Velvin Oil's delivery of allegedly tainted diesel fuel to AJP in December 2013, which AJP contends caused substantial damages to customers' vehicles and their business. AJP argues the summary judgment was improper because their amended answer effectively controverted Velvin's sworn account claim, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding payment, and the reasonableness of attorney's fees was demonstrably contested. Alternatively, AJP asserts that the Rusk County suit should have been abated due to a previously filed and dominant suit in Houston County involving the same parties and subject matter. Appellants therefore seek a reversal of the summary judgment and a remand for a new trial, or proper abatement of the current proceedings.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialSworn AccountTainted FuelCompulsory CounterclaimAbatement of SuitAttorney's FeesContract DisputeCivil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sauls v. Union Oil Co. of California

Plaintiff Buel L. Sauls, Jr. brought claims against Defendant Union Oil Company of California for intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy related to his employment at Unocal's Beaumont refinery. Unocal sought partial summary judgment, arguing federal labor law preemption, non-liability for co-worker actions, and that the alleged conduct was not extreme or outrageous. The court denied Unocal's motion, concluding that Sauls' state law tort claims were not preempted by the LMRA. It also found genuine issues of material fact regarding Unocal's potential liability for the actions of Sauls' co-workers and management, and determined that the alleged workplace harassment and misconduct could indeed constitute extreme and outrageous conduct under Texas law, precluding summary judgment.

summary judgmentemotional distresslabor law preemptioncollective bargaining agreementemployer liabilityco-worker harassmentTexas common lawoutrageous conductTitle VIILMRA
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nixson v. Mobil Oil Corp.

David R. Nixson, an employee of Mobil Oil Corporation, suffered a severe arm injury requiring amputation in 1994 while working with rail cars. Mobil was a subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, and Nixson received workers' compensation benefits. Nixson subsequently filed a suit against Mobil and Marie Newman under the Texas Railroad Liability Act. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of Mobil and Newman, which Nixson appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Nixson's failure to provide notice waiving workers' compensation benefits and electing a statutory cause of action under the Railroad Liability Act limited him to the exclusive remedy of the Workers' Compensation Act, as determined by statutory construction regarding the conflict between the two acts.

Workers' CompensationRailroad Liability ActSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyStatutory ConflictLegislative IntentElection of RemediesTexas LawIndustrial AccidentEmployee Injury
References
17
Case No. 04-14-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Michael A. Cerny and Myra L. Cerny, Individually and as Next Friends of Cameron A. Cerny, a Child v. Marathon Oil Corporation, Marathon Oil EF LLC, and Plains Exploration & Producing Company

The Cernys sued Marathon Oil and Plains Exploration & Producing Company for private nuisance and negligence, alleging that toxic emissions from their oil and gas operations in the Eagle Ford Shale caused health issues and property damage. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the Cernys presented no evidence of causation. On appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court determined that the Cernys' claims were toxic torts requiring strict causation standards, including expert testimony to prove general and specific causation and to exclude other plausible causes, which the Cernys failed to provide. The appellate court also upheld the striking of the Cernys' summary judgment evidence.

Toxic TortNuisanceNegligenceSummary JudgmentCausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological StudiesOil and Gas OperationsEnvironmental ContaminationProperty Damage
References
22
Case No. 09-22-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Lexington Insurance Company v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation

This case from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal by Lexington Insurance Company against Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation. Lexington challenged a summary judgment that awarded Exxon $25 million under an umbrella insurance policy. The dispute centered on whether Exxon qualified as an additional insured under a policy issued to Brock Services, LTD, and if specific policy exclusions for workers' compensation and employer's liability applied. The court affirmed the arbitration finding that Exxon was an additional insured but ultimately reversed the trial court's judgment. It ruled that the employer's liability exclusion applied, given Exxon's status as a statutory employer of Brock's injured employees through its Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP), thus entitling Exxon to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Consequently, Lexington was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Exxon, and the awards for damages, attorney's fees, and interest were reversed.

Insurance Policy CoverageUmbrella InsuranceWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer's Liability ExclusionExclusive RemedyOCIPStatutory EmployerAdditional Insured StatusArbitration ReviewSummary Judgment Reversal
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 5,485 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