Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2016-02-0026

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 21, 2016

Palmer, Norman v. Paul Hardy

Norman Palmer, an employee of Paul Hardy, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits after allegedly falling from a roof at work on October 21, 2015. Palmer, who has a history of epileptic seizures, remembered seeing a ladder but then woke up on the ground with injuries. His employer and insurance carrier, Hartford Insurance Company, denied the claim, asserting the injury was a seizure not causally related to work. The Workers' Compensation Judge, Brian K. Addington, denied Palmer's request, finding he failed to provide sufficient evidence that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment, categorizing the fall as idiopathic due to lack of explanation. The matter is set for an Initial (Scheduling) Hearing on November 1, 2016.

Expedited HearingMedical Benefits DenialTemporary Disability BenefitsCompensable Injury DisputeArising Out of EmploymentCourse and Scope of EmploymentEpileptic Seizure FallIdiopathic Injury DoctrineEmployee Burden of ProofDegenerative Disc Disease

References

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

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

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

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

Case No. 05-12-00893-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 29, 2014

Texas Mutual Insurance Company & Gloria Williams v. Palmer, Jeff

Jeff Palmer, an employee of Barsh Company, suffered a back injury, leading to a workers’ compensation claim with Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMIC), adjusted by Gloria Williams. A dispute arose regarding the extent of his injury, causing delays in a pre-authorized surgery. Palmer sued TMIC and Williams for bad faith, alleging violations of common law, the insurance code, and the DTPA. The trial court submitted insurance code claims to the jury despite objections from TMIC, leading to a verdict for Palmer. The Court of Appeals reversed this judgment, ruling that the insurance code claims were not properly pleaded or tried by consent, thus nullifying the damages awarded to Palmer.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance Bad FaithTexas Insurance Code Section 541.061Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Jury Charge ErrorPleadings RequirementTrial by ConsentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReversalDamages Voided

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Palmer v. Miller Brewing Co.

Truman Palmer, an employee of Miller Brewing Company, was discharged under a "Final Notice Procedure" due to a high absence rate. Palmer sued Miller, alleging retaliatory discharge, claiming his absences were related to a job-related back injury and subsequent worker's compensation claim. He also claimed breach of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Miller on the good faith claim and a take-nothing judgment on the retaliatory discharge, concluding Palmer was terminated solely for excessive absences, unrelated to his worker's compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed both rulings, holding that an absence control policy that does not excuse compensation-related absences does not inherently violate the retaliatory discharge statute (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c) and that employers do not have an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment relationships.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationAbsence Control PolicyAt-Will EmploymentGood Faith and Fair DealingSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionEmployment TerminationEvidentiary RulingsCausal Connection

References

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

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

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

Showing 1-10 of 601 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2016-02-0026

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 21, 2016

Palmer, Norman v. Paul Hardy

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. v. Luker

Insurance disputeArson defenseBad faith claimContractual damagesTort damagesThird-party beneficiaryStipulation in litigationExemplary damages reversedMental anguish claimProperty loss

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

Insurance contractDuty to defendSummary judgmentPolicy exclusionIntentional bodily injuryRetaliatory dischargeEmotional distressCommercial general liabilityExcess liabilityInsurer obligations

References

Case No. 02-19-00042-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 05, 2020

Atmos Energy Corporation v. Charles L. Paul

Easement AgreementPipeline EasementBlanket EasementMultiple PipelinesContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentProperty RightsServient EstateDominant EstateReasonable Necessity Test

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

Constitutional LawWorkers' Compensation ActDue ProcessJusticiabilityDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefAdvisory OpinionReimbursement SchemeAppellate JurisdictionTexas Law

References

Case No. 05-12-00893-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 29, 2014

Texas Mutual Insurance Company & Gloria Williams v. Palmer, Jeff

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Palmer v. Miller Brewing Co.

References

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

Administrative Procedure ActReasoned JustificationConcentrated Animal Feeding OperationsEnvironmental RegulationWater QualityAir QualityDeclaratory JudgmentStandingTakings ClaimRight to Farm Act

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 18, 1992

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

Insurance LawAgency LiabilityBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingDTPATexas Insurance CodeDenial of CoverageInsurance Bad FaithPunitive DamagesJudgment N.O.V.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 21, 2008

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

Insurance CoverageReimbursementSubrogationAntisubrogation RuleAdditional InsuredIndemnification AgreementLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSettlement Consent

References

Showing 1-10 of 601 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.