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

Acceptance Indemnity Insurance v. Maltez

This case involves a declaratory judgment action filed by Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company against Melvin Alfredo Maltez and Associated Automotive, Inc. (AAI). Defendants sought entry of judgment following a state court decision that found AAI jointly and severally liable for Maltez's injuries, which occurred while he was operating a torch on AAI/Salvage premises. The state court judgment against AAI was based on a finding that AAI operated as a "single business enterprise" (SBE) with Associated Automotive Salvage (Salvage), Maltez's direct employer. Acceptance Indemnity sought a declaration that its policy did not cover AAI's liability due to an employee exclusion and the nature of the "garage operations" coverage. A jury found that Maltez was not an employee of AAI and that his injury resulted from AAI's garage operations. However, the federal court, notwithstanding the jury's verdict, found insufficient evidence that Maltez’s injury resulted from AAI’s specific garage operations. Ultimately, the Court ruled that while the policy didn't strictly require the injury to result from the named insured's garage operations, it also concluded that liability assessed solely via the SBE doctrine is insufficient to trigger an insurer's duty to indemnify. The court denied Defendants' motion for entry of judgment, finding Acceptance Indemnity had no duty to indemnify AAI.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeSingle Business Enterprise DoctrineCorporate Veil PiercingGarage Operations PolicyTexas Contract LawEmployee Exclusion ClauseIndemnification DutyRisk Distribution in InsuranceStatutory Interpretation
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mauro v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

The case addresses whether a secured party, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), is liable for an assault committed by an independent contractor's employees, Anthony and Edward Russo from Tri-City Auto Recovery, during a vehicle repossession. Plaintiffs Maureen and John Mauro allege assault and battery, contending the repossession breached the peace. GMAC argued it was not liable due to Tri-City being an independent contractor. The court, citing UCC 9-503 and various precedents, ruled that the duty to repossess without a breach of the peace is nondelegable. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment by GMAC and Tri-City Auto Recovery, seeking dismissal of the complaint, were denied, establishing GMAC's potential liability for the actions of its independent contractor's employees.

RepossessionBreach of PeaceIndependent Contractor LiabilityUCC 9-503Nondelegable DutyAssault and BatterySummary JudgmentSecured TransactionsDebtor's RightsVicarious Liability
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01591 [159 AD3d 787]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2018

Bidnick v. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of N.Y.

Neal Bidnick, a long-standing member of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons, was expelled following Masonic trials, despite initial reversals by the Masonic Commission of Appeals. This action arose after the Grand Lodge reinstated a guilty finding at its annual meeting, leading to Bidnick's expulsion. Bidnick sued the Grand Lodge and individual defendants for breach of contract, alleging wrongful expulsion, and defamation, claiming false statements of misappropriation. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting the dismissal of the defamation claim against the Grand Lodge, denying dismissal of the defamation claim against individual defendants in their individual capacities, and denying the dismissal of the breach of contract claim. The court's decision addressed the application of Benevolent Orders Law and the _Martin_ rule concerning the liability of unincorporated associations and their members.

Breach of ContractDefamationExpulsionUnincorporated AssociationBenevolent Orders LawMasonic LodgeIndividual LiabilityRepresentative CapacityCPLR 3211 (a) (7) MotionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baker v. Lockheed Aircraft Service Co.

Harvey Baker sued Lockheed Aircraft Service Company and Bob Savage for breach of an alleged employment contract for a position in Iran. Baker claimed he accepted an oral offer, which Lockheed later withdrew, citing unsatisfactory reference checks as a condition precedent. The jury found that Lockheed's revocation was based on information from these checks. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the written offer was tentative and subject to contingencies. The court emphasized that the statute of frauds required a complete written memorandum, and the parol evidence rule prevented converting a conditional written agreement into an unconditional oral one. Plaintiff failed to prove the satisfaction of the condition precedent.

Breach of ContractEmployment AgreementCondition PrecedentStatute of FraudsParol Evidence RuleContractual DisputeAppellate ReviewJury VerdictOffer of EmploymentWithdrawal of Offer
References
8
Case No. 07-10-0515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2011

in Re Charles and Cherie Robison

Charles and Cherie Robison filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to overturn trial court orders related to a personal injury claim and a severed breach of contract counterclaim against West Star Transportation, Inc. The core dispute involved the enforceability of an alleged oral settlement agreement. The Court of Appeals found that an oral acceptance of a written settlement offer does not satisfy the 'in writing' requirement of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Concluding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Robisons' motion for partial summary judgment, the appellate court conditionally granted the mandamus petition, directing the dismissal of West Star's contract cause of action, thereby rendering moot the abatement of the personal injury case and the disqualification of the Robisons' counsel.

MandamusSettlement AgreementRule 11Contract LawWorkers' CompensationPartial Summary JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewAttorney DisqualificationAbatement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Robison

Relators Charles and Cherie Robison filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging trial court orders in their personal injury and severed breach of contract causes of action against West Star Transportation, Inc. The core dispute centered on the enforceability of an alleged oral settlement agreement under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The Court determined that an oral acceptance of a written settlement offer does not satisfy Rule 11's 'in writing' requirement. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Robisons' motion for partial summary judgment on West Star's contract claim. Recognizing the delays and costs associated with further litigation of an unenforceable agreement and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal, the Court conditionally granted the mandamus, directing the trial court to dismiss the contract cause of action.

Workers' CompensationMandamusSettlement AgreementRule 11Statute of FraudsOral ContractBreach of ContractAttorney DisqualificationSummary JudgmentAbuse of Discretion
References
20
Case No. 07-10-0515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2011

in Re: L. J. Jackson, Relator

Charles and Cherie Robison (Relators) filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging three trial court orders in their personal injury and a severed contract cause of action against West Star Transportation, Inc. The core legal issue revolved around the enforceability of a disputed oral settlement agreement under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The appellate court ruled that an oral acceptance of a written settlement offer, even with subsequent fax confirmation, does not satisfy Rule 11's requirement for a written agreement, drawing parallels to the Statute of Frauds. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Robisons' motion for partial summary judgment on West Star's breach of contract claim. Citing significant delays and legal implications, the court determined there was no adequate remedy by appeal and conditionally granted the mandamus. The trial court was ordered to dismiss West Star's contract cause of action, which would then render the orders for severance, abatement, and attorney disqualification moot.

MandamusSettlement AgreementRule 11Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentAttorney DisqualificationAppellate JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy by AppealTexas Civil Procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2015

Jonibach Management Trust v. Wartburg Enterprises, Inc.

This opinion addresses Bumbo's second motion for summary judgment and its original motion for summary judgment on Wartburg's breach-of-contract counterclaim. The core dispute revolves around an oral distribution agreement for baby seats, specifically whether it limited Wartburg's sales to certain major retailers and whether Bumbo had the right to terminate the agreement due to Wartburg's alleged payment issues. The Fifth Circuit previously remanded the retailer-limitation claim, finding it was not barred by the statute of frauds due to exceptions for accepted goods and judicial admissions. The Court denied Bumbo's second motion for summary judgment, rejecting the argument that Wartburg's claim was solely for wrongful injunction and ruling that Wartburg's late disclosure of damages was not harmful enough to warrant dismissal, allowing for reopening discovery. Ultimately, the Court denied both of Bumbo's summary judgment motions, concluding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the terms of the oral agreement, who breached it first, and the reasonableness of any notice of termination.

Oral contractDistributorship agreementBreach of contractSummary judgmentStatute of fraudsUniform Commercial Code (UCC)Retailer limitation claimPreliminary injunctionDamages disclosureCourse of dealing
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,124 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