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. 03-97-00392-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

Union Pacific Resources Company and Tetra Applied Technologies, Inc. v. Loretta Chilek Phoenix Horizontal, Inc And Great West Energy and Exploration, Inc.

This case involves an interlocutory appeal from the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, challenging a class action certification. Appellants Union Pacific Resources Company and Tetra Applied Technologies, Inc. contested the certification of a class represented by Loretta Chilek, Phoenix Horizontal, Inc., and Great West Energy and Exploration, Inc. The underlying suit alleges that appellants' improper plugging of the Nana Newton Well in Lee County caused damage to numerous other wells and mineral interests due to water flow into the Austin Chalk formation. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion, focusing on numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequate representation, predominance of common issues, and superiority of a class action. Ultimately, the court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the class certification order.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealOil and GasWell PluggingMineral InterestsNegligenceTrespassNuisanceJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MBB Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

This is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order denying summary judgment for the appellant, MBB Realty Limited Partnership, and granting it for the appellee, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. The dispute centered on a commercial lease, which was amended to include percentage rent and later involved A&P's plan to further downsize, leading to a contested letter agreement regarding new percentage rent terms and property alterations. The Bankruptcy Court found the letter agreement void for lack of consideration, despite A&P's subsequent payments, a decision MBB appealed. The District Court affirmed, concluding that MBB's alleged consent to exterior changes or store downsizing did not constitute valid consideration, as these actions were either not explicitly agreed upon or already permissible under the existing lease terms, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. Consequently, arguments about ratification or the satisfaction of conditions precedent were deemed irrelevant for a void contract.

Contract LawConsiderationParol Evidence RuleSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealCommercial LeasePercentage RentLease AmendmentRatificationGood Faith and Fair Dealing
References
64
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 09604
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Maggio v. 24 West 57 PFF, LLC

Plaintiff Joseph Maggio, a drywall installer, was injured after falling from a scaffold staircase at a premises owned by 24 West 57 APF, LLC and leased by Ana Tzarev New York, LLC (ATNY). The scaffold, constructed by Atlantic Hoist & Scaffolding, LLC, had a modified staircase with plywood covering some steps, lacking anti-slip protection and having an irregular rise. Plaintiff attributed his fall to these conditions and the presence of construction debris. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from defendants 24 West and ATNY, citing outstanding discovery, and later denied renewed motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division found 24 West and ATNY justified in bringing the second motion but denied their request for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual questions regarding notice of the dangerous condition. The court also denied plaintiff's untimely cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting ATNY conditional contractual indemnification against R&R, and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationScaffold AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southern County Mutual Insurance Company v. Great West Casualty Company

Southern County Mutual Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Great West Casualty Company. Great West, acting as the subrogee of injured employee Tyron Black, sought to enforce a judgment against Southern County's insured, Standard Lee Hodges, after paying Black's workers' compensation benefits. Southern County had denied coverage under Hodges's policy, arguing the vehicle was not covered and the MCS-90 endorsement was inapplicable to disputes among insurers or subrogees. The court determined that Great West, by virtue of its subrogation rights under the Texas Labor Code, stood in Black's shoes and could therefore enforce the MCS-90 endorsement to recover the judgment against Hodges. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Great West was entitled to payment from Southern County.

SubrogationMCS-90 EndorsementWorkers' CompensationInsurance DisputeSummary Judgment ReviewMotor Carrier ActFederal RegulationsTexas Labor CodeAppellate DecisionIndemnity
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cangialosi v. Gotham Construction. Co.

Plaintiffs Frank Cangialosi and Nelson Hernandez, construction workers, fell from the 20th floor of a building due to a stringer assembly failing. They sued the owner and general contractor, Ten West End Avenue Holdings, LLC and Gotham Construction Company, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The court evaluated their motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), commonly known as the Scaffold Law. It determined that the stringer assembly served as a 'place to work' and its collapse established a prima facie violation of the statute, dismissing defendants' arguments due to inadmissible evidence. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment on liability for Cangialosi and Hernandez but denied a derivative claim by plaintiff Shanell Saunders due to insufficient evidence.

Construction Site AccidentScaffold Law ViolationLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionElevation HazardFall from HeightConstruction LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityProperty Owner LiabilityPrima Facie Case
References
73
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 30039[U]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance

Plaintiffs Extell West 57th Street and Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. sued their insurers, including Zurich and Travelers, after a construction crane at the One57 building was damaged by Superstorm Sandy. The insurers denied coverage under a builder's risk policy, leading to a dispute over whether the crane qualified as a 'temporary work' and if it was excluded as 'contractor's tools.' The lower court denied summary judgment, finding factual issues. On appeal, the majority granted summary judgment to the defendants, declaring no coverage. The dissenting opinion argues that the crane should be considered a 'temporary structure' and the 'contractor's tools' exclusion should not apply, but concurs that summary judgment for plaintiffs was improper due to a factual dispute regarding whether the crane's value was included in the total project value.

Insurance coverage disputeBuilder's risk policyTemporary structuresContractor's tools exclusionSuperstorm SandyConstruction crane damageSummary judgmentContract interpretationEjusdem generisNoscitur a sociis
References
17
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

MSK Construction, Inc. v. Mayse Construction Company

MSK Construction, Inc. (MSK) filed a breach of oral contract action against Mayse Construction Company (Mayse) for failure to pay for equipment and fuel used in a construction project for the City of Athens. Mayse denied liability and filed a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, alleging MSK failed to include concrete testing costs in their estimate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MSK, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, and denied Mayse's counterclaim. Mayse appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, finding a valid oral contract existed and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Breach of Oral ContractConstruction DisputeEquipment UsePrejudgment InterestNegligent MisrepresentationSubcontractor AgreementVendor AgreementAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationsDamages
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. 01-16-00139-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2016

City of West Columbia v. J. Marcelino E. Cornejo Garcia and Wife Ernestina Rangel, and Children, M. C., J.J.C. and M.C.

This case concerns appeals and a cross-appeal before the First District of Texas Court of Appeals. Matula & Matula Construction, Inc. (Matula) moved to dismiss its appeal and the cross-appeal by J. Marcelino E. Cornejo Garcia, Ernestina Rangel, and their minor children (Appellees) for lack of jurisdiction. The City of West Columbia had previously filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. Matula's appeal stemmed from the denial of its amended plea to the jurisdiction, citing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Division of Workers’ Compensation. Appellees' cross-appeal sought attorney's fees following the withdrawal of a Rule 91a motion. The Court granted the motion to dismiss Matula's appeal and Appellees' cross-appeal, affirming its lack of jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from non-governmental entities or attorney's fee denials, while the City of West Columbia's appeal remains active.

Interlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to DismissSovereign ImmunityWorkers' CompensationPlea to the JurisdictionAttorney's FeesAppellate CourtCivil Practice and Remedies CodeCross-Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Great South Beach Construction

Robert L. Pryor, trustee of the bankruptcy estates of Great South Beach Construction, Inc. and Great South Beach Marine Construction, appealed a bankruptcy court order. The bankruptcy court had granted summary judgment, ruling that funds withheld by the City of Long Beach, as directed by the Department of Labor under New York Labor Law § 220-b(2), constituted a statutory trust for unpaid workers' wages. Consequently, these funds were deemed not part of the debtors' bankruptcy estate. The District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that the statutory language and legislative history of Labor Law § 220-b(2)(b) indeed create a trust fund for workers' exclusive benefit, which is explicitly excluded from a debtor's bankruptcy estate under federal bankruptcy law.

BankruptcyStatutory TrustPrevailing WageLabor LawWithheld FundsChapter 7Chapter 11Automatic StaySummary JudgmentAppeal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,069 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