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. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Amerogen v. Donnini

This dissenting opinion addresses the interpretation of the 'owners of one and two-family dwellings' exemption from Labor Law liability under sections 240 and 241. Justice Levine argues that the exemption, intended to protect typical homeowners, should be strictly construed and not applied to owners who acquire residential property purely for investment and income-producing purposes. The dissent references legislative history from the Law Revision Commission, highlighting the rationale that the nondelegable duty to workers is based on the owner's dominant economic position, which breaks down for typical homeowners but not for real estate developers or investors. Therefore, the dissent concludes that such investors fall outside the protected class, maintaining that the Supreme Court correctly denied summary judgment to the defendants. The final order, however, reversed this decision, granted summary judgment to defendants, and dismissed the complaint.

Labor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryExemption ClauseOne-Two Family DwellingsOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentsSummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04779
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

DiLorenzo v. Windermere Owners LLC

This case concerns a tenant, Laura DiLorenzo, alleging rent overcharge against landlords Windermere Owners LLC and Windemere Chateau, Inc., for improperly deregulating her apartment following individual apartment improvements (IAIs). The trial court initially found in favor of the tenant, awarding damages and treble damages, citing insufficient substantiation of IAI expenditures by the landlords. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court conducted a de novo review, concluding that the landlords provided sufficient evidence of IAI costs exceeding the threshold for rent stabilization exemption, thereby dismissing the tenant's complaint. A dissenting opinion argued that the majority usurped the trial court's authority and that the landlords failed to meet their burden of proof.

Rent StabilizationRent OverchargeIndividual Apartment Improvements (IAI)High Rent VacancyFraudulent DeregulationDocumentary EvidenceCredibility of WitnessesAppellate ReviewDe Novo ReviewUseful Life of Improvements
References
35
Case No. 04-05-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

the City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Association, Inc. Kenneth Carey Joe Cochran William McCrae Karen Pena George Baum And Dan Vana Intervenors, Cheri Franklin Ed Berger Dick Chapman Betty Chapman George Pierce Debra Pierce Randy Gurley

This case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged the standing of a homeowners association and individual property owners to contest the City's proposed annexation of their property. The property owners filed suit seeking declaratory judgment that the annexation was unlawful due to procedural violations of Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and in violation of House Bill 585. The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellate court held that the property owners lacked standing to challenge the annexation, concluding that claims based on procedural defects must be brought via quo warranto proceedings and that H.B. 585, which prohibited the annexation, was an unconstitutional local law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the property owners' claims.

Annexation LawStandingPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory ReliefTemporary InjunctionQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeConstitutional LawSpecial LawLocal Law
References
25
Case No. M2020-01417-SC-R23-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2021

Affordable Construction Services, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

Affordable Construction Services, Inc., a general contractor, sued Auto-Owners Insurance Company after the insurer failed to name the contractor as a payee on an insurance proceeds check issued to the insured property owner, Grand Valley Lakes Property Owners Association, Inc., despite damages exceeding $1,000 as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-111. The case, originating from a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, sought to determine if section 56-7-111 provides a private right of action for a general contractor. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the statute does not expressly grant or imply a private right of action. Consequently, the general contractor has no legal standing to sue the insurance company for noncompliance with the statute.

Private Right of ActionStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawGeneral ContractorProperty DamageCertified Question of LawLegislative IntentTennessee Supreme CourtInsurance ProceedsPayee Requirement
References
24
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05964 [209 AD3d 596]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2022

Pirozzo v. Laight St. Fee Owner LLC

Plaintiff Paul Pirozzo sought summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Laight Street Fee Owner LLC, Laight Street Fee Owner II LLC, and Sciame Construction, LLC, which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The plaintiff established a prima facie case by demonstrating that the scaffold he was working on collapsed without an apparent reason. The defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, either by failing to lock scaffold pins or remaining on the scaffold while it was moved, were deemed unavailing. The court noted that these actions, even if proven, would amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and there was no evidence of specific instructions to the plaintiff that were disobeyed.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold collapseSole proximate causeComparative negligenceWorkers' compensation Form C-2Hearsay objectionPersonal knowledgeRecalcitranceAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03117
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2017

Trinajstic v. St. Owner, LP

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied motions for summary judgment. The case involves Thomas Trinajstic, a laborer, who fell during a renovation project and sued St. Owner, LP, and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. under Labor Law § 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party claim for common-law indemnification against Pat Pellegrini Flooring Corporation. The court found questions of fact regarding whether dust created by Pellegrini's workers contributed to Trinajstic's fall, thus barring dismissal of the Labor Law claim. Furthermore, summary resolution of the indemnification claim was deemed premature due to conflicting evidence on the cause of the fall (dust vs. broken tiles) and the defendants' failure to demonstrate a lack of their own negligence.

Labor Law § 241(6)Summary Judgment MotionCommon-Law IndemnificationAppellate DivisionConstruction Site AccidentThird-Party LitigationWorkplace Safety RegulationsDust HazardPremises Owner LiabilityContractor Negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bostic v. Dalton

Jackie Bostic, an employee of a subcontractor, was injured during the construction of a residence owned by Delicia Dalton. Delicia's father, Paul Dalton, supervised the construction without compensation and hired Bostic's immediate employer, Michael Evans, owner of Ocoee Construction Company. Bostic filed a workers' compensation action against Paul and Delicia Dalton. The trial court and Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel found both Delicia and Paul Dalton exempt from liability under the owner's exemption of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-113(f)(1). The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted full Court review and affirmed the judgment, holding that an uncompensated agent of an owner also falls within the owner's exemption, thereby shielding Paul Dalton from workers' compensation liability.

Workers' CompensationAgency LawConstruction IndustryOwner ExemptionStatutory InterpretationUncompensated AgentSubcontractor LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewWorker Injury
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01436 [192 AD3d 839]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2021

Rodriguez v. HY 38 Owner, LLC

Plaintiff Herman Rodriguez was injured at a construction site owned by HY 38 Owner, LLC, where Monadnock Construction, Inc. was the construction manager. The accident occurred while repairing a plywood gate, when another part of the gate was blown shut by wind, striking him. Rodriguez sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to HY 38 Owner, LLC, and Monadnock Construction, Inc., dismissing these claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendants failed to prima facie establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they did not adequately address the premises liability theory of the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of their motion.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionDangerous ConditionWork Site SafetyContractor Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartoo v. Buell

This case addresses whether the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) applies to structures used for both residential and commercial purposes. The court applies a "site and purpose" test to determine applicability. In Bartoo v Buell, the repair of a barn roof, used for both personal storage and commercial golf cart storage, was deemed primarily residential, thus granting the owner exemption. In Anderson v Flanagan, the addition of a bedroom to a home also operating a daycare center was found to be directly related to residential use, exempting the owner from liability. The Court concluded that owners of one- or two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work are shielded by the homeowner exemption when the work directly relates to the residential use of the home, even if it also serves a commercial purpose.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawDual-Use PropertyResidential UseCommercial UseStrict LiabilitySite and Purpose TestScaffold CollapseRoof RepairBedroom Addition
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,314 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