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

Continental Carbon Co. v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.

Continental Carbon Company appealed a default judgment rendered against it in a sworn account suit by Sea-Land Service, Inc. Continental's motion for a new trial was overruled by operation of law. On appeal, Continental argued that it was denied due process because Sea-Land did not provide notice of a default judgment hearing, and that Sea-Land's counsel violated the Texas Lawyer’s Creed. Continental also contended it satisfied the Craddock elements for granting a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Continental waived any error regarding the motion for new trial and failed to establish a meritorious defense due to its failure to file a sworn denial and its deemed admissions.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialTexas Lawyer's CreedCraddock ElementsSworn AccountDue ProcessWaiverAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCivil Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Bis Salamis, Inc.

Resten Moore, an employee of Bis Salamis, Inc. (BSI) working on the 'Thunder Horse' offshore oil production facility, filed a motion to remand his personal injury case to state court after it was removed to federal court by BSI. Moore sustained injuries from chemical exposure and a fall while working. He initially filed claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law, but BSI argued federal question jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The court denied Moore's motion to remand, ruling that the Thunder Horse is a permanent work platform, not a vessel, thus Moore is not a Jones Act seaman and his Jones Act claim is fraudulently pleaded. Consequently, the OCSLA applies, providing federal subject matter jurisdiction and making removal proper.

Motion to RemandFederal Question JurisdictionJones ActOuter Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)Seaman StatusVessel DefinitionOffshore Oil Production FacilityWork PlatformFraudulently Pleaded ClaimMaritime Law
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Anadrill, Inc.

This order addresses the defendants' Motion for Reconsideration regarding the remand of a case to state court. Defendants Union Oil Company of California and Reading & Bates Corp. argued that all claims joined with a Jones Act claim are non-removable unless they are 'separate and independent.' The Court disagreed, clarifying that while Jones Act claims are non-removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a), claims under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) are removable federal claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and (b). However, the Court found the defendants' removal attempt on January 28, 1991, to be untimely because they failed to file their notice of removal within thirty days of the OCSLA and LHWCA claims being added to the complaint. Consequently, the defendants' Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

Jones ActRemoval JurisdictionFederal PreemptionState Court JurisdictionOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActTimeliness of RemovalMotion for ReconsiderationStatutory InterpretationCivil Procedure
References
2
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. 03-01-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2002

WORKERS'COMP. COM'N v. Continental Cas.

Continental Casualty Company filed a declaratory judgment action against the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and the Subsequent Injury Fund, disputing the interpretation of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act regarding reimbursement of benefits paid to claimants. Continental sought full reimbursement for benefits paid to Elisa Smith, arguing that the pre-1999 Act had no "gap" in reimbursement provisions between the contested-case hearing and appeals panel decisions, as asserted by the Commission. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Continental, ordering full reimbursement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, ruling that no such reimbursement gap existed in the pre-1999 Act and that the Commission's interpretation was contrary to the statute's language and purpose. The court also clarified that prior rulings did not validate the Commission's "gap" theory.

Workers' Compensation ActReimbursement DisputeStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActionInterlocutory OrdersSubsequent Injury FundAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentLegislative IntentAdministrative Remedies
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torch Operating Co. v. Bartell

Gary Bartell, employed by Plaisance Inspection & Enterprises, Inc., suffered personal injuries while working on a Torch Operating Company platform off the Louisiana coast. He began receiving workers’ compensation benefits from Plaisance under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Bartells alleged various causes of action against Torch, including strict liability and negligence, and were awarded damages after a bench trial. Torch appealed, contending that the Bartells failed to plead a cause of action under OCSLA and that their claims were barred by Louisiana’s workers’ compensation act immunity. The court found that the Bartells' amended petition sufficiently notified the court and opposing party of the OCSLA claim. The court also held that federal immunity rules under OCSLA and LHWCA preempt Louisiana's broader contractor immunity, thus denying Torch's immunity argument. The judgment in favor of the Bartells was affirmed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActJones ActNegligenceStrict LiabilityContractor ImmunityFederal PreemptionLouisiana Law
References
16
Case No. 03-01-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2002

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission The Subsequent Injury Fund And Leonard W. Riley, Jr. v. Continental Casualty Company

Continental Casualty Company initiated a declaratory judgment action to challenge the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission's interpretation of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The dispute centered on the Commission's refusal to fully reimburse Continental for benefits paid to a claimant, Elisa Smith, citing a perceived 'gap' in the pre-1999 Act's reimbursement provisions. The district court sided with Continental, granting summary judgment and ordering full reimbursement. The Commission appealed the decision, raising concerns about jurisdiction and the statutory interpretation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that no reimbursement 'gap' existed in the pre-1999 Act and that the Commission's interpretation was contrary to the statute's language and underlying purpose.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActionSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeAdministrative RemediesAppellate ReviewSubsequent Injury FundLegislative IntentInsurance Disputes
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamson v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kay Williamson, John Richards, and Carol Richards filed a wrongful death suit under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) following a helicopter crash in the Gulf of Mexico that killed James Edward Williamson and John Paul Richards. The crash occurred during transport between offshore platforms. Defendants Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., Eurocopter S.A., and American Eurocopter Corporation moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) should apply, thereby precluding punitive and non-pecuniary damages. The Court found that admiralty jurisdiction existed, leading to the application of maritime law, specifically DOHSA, over OCSLA. Consequently, DOHSA's limitations on damages resulted in the granting of the defendants' motion and the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for punitive and non-pecuniary damages.

Wrongful DeathOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActDeath on the High Seas ActAdmiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawSummary JudgmentPunitive DamagesNon-Pecuniary DamagesHelicopter CrashOffshore Platform Accident
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kiefer v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

Norma L. Kiefer and her husband Robert C. Kiefer (the Kiefers) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Continental Airlines, Inc. The Kiefers sued Continental for personal injuries and loss of society after Mrs. Kiefer was injured by a falling bag from an overhead bin during a flight. Continental contended that the Kiefers' state common-law negligence claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, specifically 49 U.S.C.A.App. § 1305. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that state common-law negligence claims for personal injuries are not expressly preempted by federal law, thus remanding the case for a trial on the merits.

Federal PreemptionAirline Deregulation ActPersonal InjuryNegligenceState Common LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFederal Aviation ActAirline Liability
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 1996

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Oryx Energy Co.

This case concerns a dispute over insurance coverage and indemnity obligations arising from a serious personal injury sustained by Henry Mote, an oil field worker. Plaintiff Underwriters sought reimbursement from Oryx after funding a significant portion of Mote's $12,000,000 settlement. The core issue involved determining the extent of Oryx's status as an additional insured under a drilling agreement with Mallard Bay Drilling, Mote's employer. The court applied Texas law under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, finding that the Underwriters did not waive their coverage defenses. Ultimately, the court concluded that Oryx's indemnity was unilateral and thus limited to $500,000 under the Texas Anti-Indemnity Statute, entitling the Underwriters to a reimbursement of $10,550,000.

Indemnity AgreementInsurance Coverage DisputeOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActTexas Anti-Indemnity StatuteAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentWaiver and EstoppelMaritime LawPersonal Injury SettlementReimbursement
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 7,112 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