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

St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. v. Luker

Paul and Teri Luker sued St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company after their claim for lost household goods in a fire was denied under a homeowner's policy issued to Kim's father, Emmett Luker. St. Paul denied the claim, alleging arson by the Lukers and misrepresentation, despite a prior stipulation agreeing to coverage for the Lukers' personal effects. A jury awarded the Lukers contractual damages for property loss and tort damages for bad faith and mental anguish. On appeal, the court affirmed the contractual damages, finding St. Paul owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing to the Lukers as third-party beneficiaries due to the stipulation. However, the court reversed the awards for exemplary damages and bad faith tort damages, remanding the bad faith claim for a new trial, citing insufficient evidence that St. Paul acted in bad faith or with conscious indifference in denying the claim.

Insurance disputeArson defenseBad faith claimContractual damagesTort damagesThird-party beneficiaryStipulation in litigationExemplary damages reversedMental anguish claimProperty loss
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I. Appel Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

This appeal concerns the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of St. Paul insurance company, which held that St. Paul had no duty to defend its insured, I. Appel. The underlying lawsuit involved Brenda Kelley, who alleged retaliatory discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress against I. Appel, stemming from an incident with Mike Landreth. St. Paul denied coverage based on policy exclusions for intentional acts and injuries to fellow employees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the policy's exclusionary language clearly applied to I. Appel's alleged intentional acts, thereby relieving St. Paul of its defense obligation.

Insurance contractDuty to defendSummary judgmentPolicy exclusionIntentional bodily injuryRetaliatory dischargeEmotional distressCommercial general liabilityExcess liabilityInsurer obligations
References
5
Case No. 02-19-00042-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Atmos Energy Corporation v. Charles L. Paul

This appeal involves a dispute over the interpretation of a 1960 easement agreement that grants a right-of-way for a grantee to construct, maintain, and operate pipelines over and through 137 acres of property. Appellee Charles L. Paul currently owns a portion of this property. Atmos Energy Corporation, the current owner of the easement, sued Paul for violating the easement agreement after he denied Atmos access to construct a new pipeline. The probate court granted summary judgment in Paul’s favor, rendering judgment that Atmos take nothing. The appellate court reversed, finding that the unambiguous easement agreement created a multiple pipeline blanket easement that does not require additional pipelines to be laid along the same path as the first, and that Paul did not conclusively establish that the new pipeline unreasonably burdened his property. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Easement AgreementPipeline EasementBlanket EasementMultiple PipelinesContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentProperty RightsServient EstateDominant EstateReasonable Necessity Test
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company ("St. Paul's") challenged the constitutionality of the immediate payment and reimbursement scheme of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, specifically sections 409.023(a), 410.032, 410.169, and 410.205. This dispute arose from separate claims made by Martha Oviedo and Phillip Williams for workers' compensation benefits, which St. Paul disputed. St. Paul argued that the omission of a reimbursement provision for funds paid under a contested-case decision that is later reversed violates several provisions of the Texas and U.S. Constitutions. The court ultimately concluded that the case did not present a justiciable controversy because St. Paul had not established imminent harm, as the contested-case hearing officers' decisions had not been modified or reversed. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment was vacated, and the cause was dismissed.

Constitutional LawWorkers' Compensation ActDue ProcessJusticiabilityDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefAdvisory OpinionReimbursement SchemeAppellate JurisdictionTexas Law
References
7
Case No. 03-98-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms/Accord Agriculture, Inc. v. Accord Agriculture, Inc./Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms

Accord Agriculture, Inc. (Accord) initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), challenging the validity of rules established for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Accord contended that the TNRCC failed to meet the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) reasoned justification requirement and exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating these rules. The trial court invalidated the CAFO rules due to the lack of reasoned justification but dismissed Accord's claims regarding a 'takings' violation and the constitutionality of the Right to Farm Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the CAFO rules and the dismissal of the 'takings' claim. However, it reversed the dismissal of Accord's challenge to the Right to Farm Act, remanding that specific issue for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActReasoned JustificationConcentrated Animal Feeding OperationsEnvironmental RegulationWater QualityAir QualityDeclaratory JudgmentStandingTakings ClaimRight to Farm Act
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1992

Shelton Insurance Agency v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal by Shelton Insurance Agency and John M. Roberts against St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company regarding the alleged mishandling of an insurance claim. Shelton Agency initially sued St. Paul for violations of the DTPA, Texas Insurance Code, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing after St. Paul denied coverage to its customer, Frio Drilling Company. A jury found in favor of Shelton Agency, awarding actual and exemplary damages, but the trial court granted St. Paul's motion for judgment n.o.v. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the DTPA, insurance code, breach of good faith, and punitive damages claims. However, it reversed and rendered the judgment on the breach of contract claim, ruling that Shelton Agency was entitled to recover $34,000 for premiums it wrote off.

Insurance LawAgency LiabilityBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingDTPATexas Insurance CodeDenial of CoverageInsurance Bad FaithPunitive DamagesJudgment N.O.V.
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2008

Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance

In this insurance coverage dispute, IICNA, Romano's excess insurer, sought reimbursement from St. Paul (Yonkers' insurer) and Yonkers (general contractor) for a $2 million payment made to settle an underlying personal injury suit involving Eugene Flood. Flood, a Yonkers employee, was injured due to a cable left by subcontractor Romano. IICNA settled the underlying action without St. Paul's consent, believing St. Paul's policy was primary and Yonkers was contractually obligated to indemnify. The court denied IICNA's claims, finding St. Paul was not bound by the non-consented settlement and had properly tendered defense to Romano. Furthermore, IICNA's subrogation claim against Yonkers was barred by the antisubrogation rule, as Yonkers was an additional insured under IICNA's policy.

Insurance CoverageReimbursementSubrogationAntisubrogation RuleAdditional InsuredIndemnification AgreementLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSettlement Consent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Inc. v. Dal-Worth Tank

St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (St. Paul) appealed a judgment in favor of Dai-Worth Tank Co. (Dai-Worth) and Mission Butane Gas Co., raising fifty-six points of error concerning a "Mary Carter agreement," insufficient evidence, and damage awards. Dai-Worth cross-appealed for exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed many of the jury's findings, including St. Paul's negligence, breach of good faith, deceptive practices, and unconscionable actions, finding St. Paul had actual knowledge of the lawsuit and was estopped from denying coverage. However, the court reversed the award for future lost profits due to insufficient evidence, necessitating a recalculation of actual damages, treble damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees. The case was remanded to the trial court for these computations, upholding the principle that exemplary damages and statutory treble damages cannot both be recovered for the same acts.

Insurance LawAppellate ProcedureMary Carter AgreementDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Bad Faith InsuranceNegligenceBreach of ContractLost ProfitsDefault JudgmentAgency Law
References
104
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 1989

In re the Arbitration Between St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company petitioned for a stay of arbitration sought by James D. Brown, Jr. and for a declaration that Richard Faulkner's vehicle was covered by Aetna Casualty & Surety Company's policy issued to Empire Preferred Commercial Operations. Faulkner, an Empire employee, was involved in an accident with Brown while driving his own car for business purposes, despite making a stop to pick up his son en route to a job inspection site. Brown made a claim against the uninsured motorist provision of his policy with St. Paul. The lower court found Faulkner's vehicle was used "in connection with" Empire's business, and this finding was upheld on appeal. The court concluded that picking up his son was not a deviation from employment. Therefore, the judgment granting St. Paul's petition and affirming Aetna's coverage for Faulkner's vehicle was unanimously affirmed.

Insurance CoverageAutomobile AccidentScope of EmploymentNon-Owned AutomobilesArbitration StayDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityEmployee TravelBusiness Use of VehicleDeviation from Employment
References
3
Case No. 02-22-00305-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2023

University of North Texas Health Science Center v. Marcy Paul

Marcy Paul sued the University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) for age and sex discrimination, and retaliation, after her employment contract was not renewed and she was not hired for a tenure-track position or promoted to Department Chair. UNTHSC filed a plea to the jurisdiction on sovereign-immunity grounds. Paul conceded the lack of jurisdiction for the failure-to-promote to Department Chair claim. The Court of Appeals found that Paul presented sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue on her age- and sex-discrimination claims related to the failure to hire her for a tenure-track professor position, and her age-discrimination claim for the contract nonrenewal. However, the court found insufficient evidence for her sex-discrimination claim related to the contract nonrenewal. Consequently, the trial court's denial of UNTHSC's plea to the jurisdiction was affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

Age DiscriminationSex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionPrima Facie CasePretextMcDonnell DouglasTenure-track position
References
71
Showing 1-10 of 559 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