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. 01-02-01008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2003

Landmark Chevrolet, Corp. & Bill Heard Chevrolet, Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, 'the dealerships') against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company ('Universal'). The dealerships were sued in two underlying class-action lawsuits by customers alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud due to being charged a 'Consumer Services Fee' for a worthless coupon book. Universal, the dealerships' insurer, declined to defend them under their Statute and Title E&O (STEO) coverage, which only covered claims arising from violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws. Universal then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment in Universal’s favor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the 'eight-corners rule' and concluding that the underlying petitions did not allege facts indicating violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws, and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-Lending LawsTruth-in-Leasing LawsDeclaratory JudgmentClass Action LawsuitsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer Services FeeAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turbodyne Corp. v. Heard

Turbodyne Corporation, et al. filed an original mandamus action against Judge Hyatt Heard of the 190th District Court of Harris County. The applicants sought to compel Judge Heard to rescind his order denying discovery of 39 documents from Travelers Insurance Company, which Travelers claimed were privileged under TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals had previously denied mandamus relief. The Supreme Court of Texas, citing *Robinson v. Harkins & Company*, held that the investigative privilege only protects documents prepared for the specific lawsuit in which discovery is sought, not for prior settlements. The court also found that Travelers failed to prove that documents prepared by non-testifying experts were made in anticipation of the subrogation litigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering that documents prepared prior to July 30, 1980, are discoverable.

MandamusDiscovery DisputePrivilegeTrial Court Abuse of DiscretionTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureWork Product DoctrineAnticipation of LitigationSubrogation SuitInsurance InvestigationConditional Grant
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Johnson & Higgins

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Johnson & Higgins (J&H) over a mandatory pre-65 retirement policy that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court previously found J&H liable and issued an injunction. J&H then sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for monetary and injunctive relief based on waivers signed by thirteen retired employee-directors, who had received $1,000 in exchange for waiving ADEA rights. The retired directors later repudiated these waivers, citing conflict of interest, economic duress, and undue influence. The EEOC opposed the waivers, arguing inadequate consideration, lack of voluntariness, and that J&H negotiated them without EEOC participation after a finding of liability. The District Court denied J&H's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration and the voluntariness of the waivers. The court also held that waivers entered into after a finding of liability and without EEOC participation are invalid as a matter of law.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEAWaiversSummary JudgmentKnowing and VoluntaryConsiderationOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActOWBPARepudiation of WaiversEEOC Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tuttle v. Housing Opportunities Management & Essential Services, Inc.

The plaintiff, a 30-year-old man diagnosed with retardation, suffered severe burns from an assault by a friend in his apartment. He resided in an intensive supportive apartment provided by Housing Opportunities Management and Essential Services, Inc. (H.O.M.E.S.), a non-profit organization offering housing for individuals with psychiatric or developmental conditions within a state-authorized community living program. While H.O.M.E.S. staff and other therapists had approved his move to this less restrictive setting, concerns arose regarding friends taking advantage of him, leading H.O.M.E.S. to initiate a discharge process for him to move to a more supervised environment, which was not completed before the incident. The court deliberated on whether H.O.M.E.S. owed a duty to protect the plaintiff from a third party's criminal acts. Citing Mental Hygiene Law and various precedents, the court concluded that H.O.M.E.S. had no such special duty, emphasizing that the community care system prioritizes individual liberties and the assault by the friend was not reasonably foreseeable. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Community HousingDevelopmental DisabilitiesPsychiatric ConditionsNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsMental Hygiene LawCommunity Care SystemResidential Programs
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowaters Southern Paper Corp. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

This case involves a petition by Bowaters Southern Paper Corporation to set aside a demand for access to evidence by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and a cross-petition by the EEOC to enforce its demand. The dispute arose after a Commissioner's charge alleging unlawful employment practices against Bowaters was filed, leading to an EEOC investigation and subsequently a demand for extensive personnel records. Bowaters contended the demand was invalid because the underlying charge failed to "set forth the facts upon which it is based" as required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court found that the Commissioner's charge, which merely listed general discriminatory practices without supporting facts, was legally insufficient to invoke the Commission's investigative jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court denied the EEOC's motion for enforcement and set aside the demand for access to evidence, concluding that a valid charge is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an investigation.

Equal Employment OpportunityCivil Rights Act of 1964Administrative LawInvestigative AuthorityJudicial ReviewSufficiency of ChargeDemand for EvidenceUnlawful Employment PracticesRacial DiscriminationJurisdictional Prerequisite
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shelby County Government

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against J.A. Blackwell, Shelby County, and the Shelby County Board of Commissioners, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act on behalf of fourteen female employees. The court found that female employees performing substantially equal work to male counterparts received lower wages. Defendants failed to prove that wage disparities were based on seniority, merit, quality/quantity of work, or any factor other than sex. The court concluded that sex was a 'but for' cause of the disparity, ruled the violation was willful, and awarded backpay and prospective wage increases to the claimants.

Equal Pay ActWage DiscriminationGender DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActWillful ViolationBackpayLiquidated DamagesSubjective Pay SystemCivil Rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a lawsuit against Firestone Tire & Rubber Company and its unions, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The EEOC contended that Firestone unlawfully failed to provide severance awards to employees eligible for pensions when its Memphis plant closed in 1983. The court ruled that the EEOC's claim was time-barred due to exceeding the two-year statute of limitations, and found no willful violation by Firestone. Furthermore, the court concluded that Firestone's P&I Plan, viewed comprehensively, did not adversely affect older employees, who received greater overall benefits. The court also upheld Firestone's defense that its plan was a bona fide employee benefit plan. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationSeverance PayPension PlanADEAStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentEmployee BenefitsPlant ClosureCollective BargainingWillful Violation
References
17
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1990

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 580

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce subpoenas against entities related to defendants Local 580 and AJEF to uncover their true financial condition. The defendants claimed financial impossibility in complying with a consent judgment regarding discrimination. After a Special Master's initial denial of discovery for certain years was overturned by the court, the defendants and non-parties moved to vacate the Special Master's revised order and dismiss EEOC's appeal, citing procedural irregularities. The court denied their motion, affirming the relevance of the financial records and rejecting their procedural arguments, as well as denying a request for interlocutory appeal certification and a stay of production.

Employment DiscriminationContempt of CourtConsent Judgment EnforcementDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Duces TecumSpecial Master AuthorityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureInterlocutory AppealUnion FinanceApprenticeship Programs
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landmark Chevrolet Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (the dealerships) against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Universal). The dealerships sought to overturn a judgment declaring that Universal had no duty to defend them in two underlying class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits, brought by customers, alleged violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud related to a 'Consumer Services Fee.' Universal denied coverage under the Statute and Title E&O (STEO) policy, arguing that the underlying petitions did not allege truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing violations as required by the policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in Universal's favor, upholding the application of the 'eight-corners' rule and declining to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-LendingTruth-in-LeasingDeceptive Trade Practices ActSummary JudgmentExtrinsic EvidenceAutomobile SalesClass Action
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,071 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