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

Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Parker

Rufus Parker, an employee of Daniels Drilling Corporation, died from an injury sustained in December 1932. His parents, Frank and Clara Parker, filed for compensation with the Industrial Accident Board, which awarded them weekly payments and a lump sum. The Traders & General Insurance Company, the insurer, appealed this award, filing suit to set it aside and denying Parker's death resulted from employment injury. The jury found Parker was an employee of Daniels Drilling Corporation, and the court calculated weekly wages and rendered judgment for the Parkers. The insurance company appealed this judgment, but the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible errors in the trial proceedings or arguments.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployee StatusIndustrial Accident BoardInsurance LiabilityAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofJury InstructionsAdmissibility of EvidenceAttorney ArgumentDaily Wage Calculation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Parker

This is an appeal concerning a jury verdict in favor of appellees under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law, stemming from the death of James L. Parker, an employee of Lone Star Defense Corporation, who was killed on April 28, 1944. The core issue on appeal was whether Parker was in the course of his employment when he was fatally injured by a train on the employer’s premises while returning to work, having been delayed due to getting safety heels replaced on his shoes as per employer instruction. The court upheld the jury's finding that Parker intended to work, emphasizing that employees on employer premises, en route to or from work, are generally covered under workers' compensation, even if on a dual mission. It highlighted the liberal construction of such laws, noting that a causal connection between employment and the activity at the time of injury is sufficient, and found no error regarding alleged witness perjury or proof of pay rates. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court in favor of the appellees was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentPremises RuleDual MissionGoing and Coming RuleFatal InjuryTexas LawJury VerdictAppealEmployer Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Enserch Corp.

This case involves Mary Jean Parker and others (collectively Parker) suing Enserch Corporation (d/b/a Lone Star Gas Company) and J.W. “Bill” Christie, Incorporated (Christie) for the wrongful deaths of Billy Joe Parker and Preston Edward Watson. The decedents, employees of Christie, died from a natural gas leak while working on a pipeline owned by Enserch. Parker appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Enserch, arguing issues of retained control by Enserch over Christie's work and the statute of limitations. Christie also appealed the summary judgment granted to Enserch on its indemnity claim, contending the indemnity agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, specifically regarding the express negligence rule and compliance with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The appellate court reversed and remanded Parker's case, finding material fact issues regarding Enserch's duty of care and the statute of limitations. It also reversed the judgment against Christie, ruling that Christie did not expressly assume liability for injuries to its own employees, thus sustaining Christie's appeal on the workers' compensation bar.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilityRetained Control DoctrinePremises DefectStatute of LimitationsMisnomerMisidentificationIndemnity AgreementExpress Negligence Rule
References
42
Case No. 14-09-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2009

in Re Investment Capital Corporation and Service Corporation International

Relators Investment Capital Corporation (ICC) and Service Corporation International (SCI) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Kathleen Stone of Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County to grant leave to designate SCI Funeral & Cemetary Purchasing Cooperative, Inc. as a responsible third party in a wrongful death suit. The underlying suit was initiated by the widow of Harold Israel, who suffered fatal injuries after falling in a parking garage. The trial court denied the relators' motion to designate SCI Funeral as a responsible third party. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the relators had an adequate remedy at law and that the case did not present the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify mandamus relief, distinguishing it from precedent such as In re Arthur Andersen.

Mandamus ReliefResponsible Third Party DesignationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate RemedyWrongful Death SuitNegligence ClaimsGross NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Parker (In Re Parker)

The Boards of Trustees of three Carpenters Benefit Funds filed an adversary complaint against David Parker, seeking to deny his bankruptcy discharge or declare certain debts nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727, 523(a)(4), and/or (a)(6). The debts stemmed from Parker Deco, Inc.'s (where Parker was President) failure to make contributions and remit union dues to the Benefit Funds per a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). A prior District Court judgment had been obtained against Parker Deco. During the trial, the Benefit Funds withdrew their § 523(a)(6) and § 727 claims, proceeding solely on § 523(a)(4). The court found that unpaid employer contributions did not constitute 'plan assets' under ERISA without explicit CBA language, thus Parker was not a fiduciary for those. For employee withholdings, the court found no larceny or embezzlement due to lack of fraudulent intent. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, finding the Benefit Funds failed to meet their burden of proof, and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees.

Bankruptcy DischargeabilityERISA Fiduciary DutyDefalcationEmbezzlementUnpaid Employer ContributionsUnion Dues WithholdingsCollective Bargaining AgreementAdversary ProceedingBankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(4)Plan Assets
References
31
Case No. 09-22-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Lexington Insurance Company v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation

This case from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal by Lexington Insurance Company against Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation. Lexington challenged a summary judgment that awarded Exxon $25 million under an umbrella insurance policy. The dispute centered on whether Exxon qualified as an additional insured under a policy issued to Brock Services, LTD, and if specific policy exclusions for workers' compensation and employer's liability applied. The court affirmed the arbitration finding that Exxon was an additional insured but ultimately reversed the trial court's judgment. It ruled that the employer's liability exclusion applied, given Exxon's status as a statutory employer of Brock's injured employees through its Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP), thus entitling Exxon to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Consequently, Lexington was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Exxon, and the awards for damages, attorney's fees, and interest were reversed.

Insurance Policy CoverageUmbrella InsuranceWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer's Liability ExclusionExclusive RemedyOCIPStatutory EmployerAdditional Insured StatusArbitration ReviewSummary Judgment Reversal
References
33
Case No. 14-18-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2019

James Construction Group, LLC, Primoris Services Corporation v. Westlake Chemical Corporation

James Construction Group, LLC and Primoris Services Corporation appealed a judgment concerning contract claims with Westlake Chemical Corporation. Chemical had initially sued James for breach of a construction contract, citing safety violations and a failure to indemnify. The jury found James liable for breach of contract and indemnification, leading to damages and attorney's fees awarded against Primoris due to a guaranty. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's findings on James's liability and the attorney's fees against Primoris. Crucially, the court reversed the trial court's judgment awarding James damages on its counterclaim, clarifying that a contractual waiver of consequential damages serves as an affirmative defense rather than a basis for a breach-of-contract claim.

Contract LawBreach of ContractConstruction ContractIndemnificationGuaranty AgreementAttorney's FeesConsequential DamagesWaiver of DamagesConditions PrecedentSubstantial Compliance
References
136
Case No. 13-02-415-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Daimlerchrysler Corporation (f/K/A Chrysler Corporation), Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler v. Bill L. Inman, David Castro and John Wilkins, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

This case involves an interlocutory appeal filed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation, challenging a trial court's certification of two nationwide classes. The plaintiffs are owners of DaimlerChrysler automobiles equipped with defective Gen-3 seatbelt buckles, alleging design defects leading to purely economic losses, but no physical injury or property damage. DaimlerChrysler contended the plaintiffs lacked standing under common-law torts, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) warranties. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the plaintiffs had standing, concluding they suffered a distinct, actual injury from insufficient product value, and that monetary damages would provide redress. However, the court reversed and remanded the class certification due to the trial court's failure to perform a proper choice-of-law analysis for nationwide claims.

Defective ProductsClass ActionStanding to SueEconomic LossSeatbelt DefectsTexas LawDTPAUCCBreach of WarrantyNegligence
References
96
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Victory Energy Corporation, Smart Gas, LLC, and HCP Investments, LLC v. Oz Gas Corporation

This case involves an appeal by three business associations (Appellants) challenging a trial court's decision that named Oz Gas Corporation (Appellee) as the true leaseholder of disputed oil and gas land in Crockett County, Texas. The Appellants were also assessed damages for bad faith trespass. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of a Substitute Trustee's Deed concerning the conveyance of oil and gas leasehold interests. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that Oz Gas Corporation holds exclusive title to the West Unit of the disputed land. The court also found that Appellants committed bad faith mineral trespass by relying on an outdated title opinion and failing to conduct proper due diligence, and upheld the joint and several liability for damages.

Oil and Gas LeasesMineral RightsTrespass to Try TitleBad Faith TrespassDeed ConstructionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLeasehold InterestProration UnitsRailroad Commission
References
36
Case No. 348-363561-25
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2025

Pecos Housing Finance Corporation, Pleasanton Housing Finance Corporation, Maverick Housing Finance Corporation, and La Villa Housing Finance Corporation v. City of Arlington

The City of Arlington and City of Fort Worth initiated a lawsuit against several Housing Finance Corporations (HFCs) and Joe Don Bobbitt, the Chief Appraiser of the Tarrant Appraisal District. The cities allege that these HFCs are unlawfully removing properties in Tarrant County from tax appraisal rolls, resulting in significant loss of tax revenue. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the Texas Housing Finance Corporation Act, with cities arguing that HFCs are operating outside their geographical jurisdictions and for non-low-income housing purposes. The HFCs filed pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to transfer venue. The court denied Pecos HFC's plea to the jurisdiction and granted the temporary injunctions sought by both cities, prohibiting HFCs from further acquisitions or tax exemption requests in Arlington and Fort Worth, and preventing the Chief Appraiser from granting such exemptions. The HFCs are now appealing these interlocutory orders.

Housing Finance Corporation ActTax Exemption DisputeProperty Tax LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentTemporary InjunctionGovernmental ImmunityVenue DisputeAdministrative RemediesLocal Government LawTarrant County
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,747 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