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. 14-09-00105-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. 09-0941
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2011

Service Corporation International and Sci Texas Funeral Services, Inc., D/B/A Mont Meta Memorial Park v. Juanita G. Guerra, Julie Ann Ramirez, Gracie Little and Mary Esther Martinez

The case involves Service Corporation International and SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., which operated Mont Meta Memorial Park, burying Marcos Guerra in a plot previously sold to another party. Despite the family's refusal, the cemetery disinterred and moved Mr. Guerra's body. His widow, Juanita G. Guerra, and daughters sued both corporations for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and trespass. The Supreme Court of Texas found insufficient evidence to support the liability findings against SCI International and the mental anguish damages awarded to the daughters. The Court also ruled that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of other lawsuits. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and rendered in part, and Mrs. Guerra's claim against SCI Texas was remanded for a new trial.

Cemetery DisputeWrongful DisintermentMental Anguish DamagesCorporate VeilVicarious LiabilityEvidentiary ErrorIrrelevant EvidenceOther Acts EvidencePunitive DamagesTexas Supreme Court
References
32
Case No. 21-0614
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2022

Cameron International Corporation A/K/A Cameron Systems Corporation v. Hugo A. Martinez and Dolores Ramirez, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Javier Garcia, Jr., Javier Mayagoitia, Sr., Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Javier Mayagoitia, Jr., Julieta Taylor Osman Martinez And Jeanne Chavez, Individually and as Next Friend and Guardian of M. C., a Minor Child

This case addresses the vicarious liability of an employer for an oilfield worker's negligence during a car accident. The Supreme Court of Texas examined whether the "special mission" exception applied to the "coming-and-going" rule when the worker was driving to an oilfield site after completing personal errands like buying groceries and fuel. The Court held that a personal trip for necessities, not directed by the employer, does not constitute a special mission, thus reversing the appellate court's decision and reinstating the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the employer, Cameron International Corporation. The decision clarifies the distinction between common law vicarious liability and workers' compensation claims regarding the scope of employment.

Vicarious LiabilitySpecial Mission ExceptionComing and Going RuleEmployer NegligenceCourse and Scope of EmploymentOilfield AccidentPersonal ErrandsSummary JudgmentTexas LawRespondeat Superior
References
16
Case No. 14-14-00345-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2015

Albert Lujan D/B/A Texas Wholesale Flower Co. v. Navistar, Inc., Navistar International Corporation, Navistar International Transportation Corp., International Truck and Engine Corporation and Santex Truck Centers, Ltd.

This appeal concerns a lawsuit for damages stemming from the Appellant's purchase of defective trucks from the Appellees. The Appellant, Albert Lujan d/b/a Texas Wholesale Flower Co., alleged breach of express and implied warranties, failure of essential purpose, and economic coercion/duress after the purchased trucks experienced repeated engine failures. The trial court granted the Appellees' motions for summary judgment, finding warranty disclaimers operative, dismissing claims for lack of standing, and striking the Appellant's supporting affidavit as a 'sham' and conclusory. The Appellant argues these rulings were erroneous, contending the disclaimers were invalid, factual issues existed regarding warranty breaches, and the court improperly adjudicated unpresented claims. Additionally, the Appellant challenges the striking of his affidavit and the acceptance of untimely evidence by the trial court.

Breach of WarrantySummary JudgmentEconomic DuressBusiness CoercionProduct LiabilityVehicle DefectsEngine FailureContract LawUniform Commercial CodeAppellate Procedure
References
34
Case No. 13-02-00385-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2004

Formosa Plastics Corporation, Usa v. Kajima International, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from the 135th District Court of Calhoun County, Texas, between Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA (Appellant) and Kajima International, Inc. (Appellee). The suit originated from claims of fraud, breach of contract, quantum meruit, and negligent misrepresentation related to construction contracts. This document is a dissenting opinion by Justice Castillo, disagreeing with the majority's decision to reverse and remand. The dissent addresses several key issues, including the reliability and "side-switching" conflict of interest regarding Kajima's expert witness (Hutchison), the trial court's exclusion of mitigation evidence, a partial summary judgment on the single-business-enterprise status of Formosa USA and Formosa Texas, and jury charge issues related to mitigation, ratification, and broad-form fraud questions. Justice Castillo concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on these issues and would affirm the judgment awarding Kajima $15,432,123.45 in fraud damages. The majority, however, sustained Formosa's third issue (expert witness related), reversing and remanding the case.

fraudexpert witnessconflict of interestside-switchingreliabilitymitigationsingle business enterprisejury instructionscontract disputeconstruction law
References
47
Case No. 01-11-00459-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Sonerra Resources Corporation v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co.

Sonerra Resources Corporation, an oil-well operator, sued Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., a drilling contractor, for breach of contract, seeking indemnity after an H&P employee was injured by a defective part supplied by Sonerra. Sonerra argued that article 14.8 of their drilling contract required H&P to indemnify it for employee bodily injury claims. H&P contended that article 14.7, which addressed damages from materials furnished by Sonerra, required Sonerra to indemnify H&P. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of H&P, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The appellate court found that the term "materials" in article 14.7 encompassed the defective part and that "any loss or damage" included bodily injury claims, making article 14.7 the more specific provision controlling over article 14.8.

contract disputeindemnity agreementbreach of contractsummary judgmentoil and gas industrydrilling contractbodily injury claimsdefective materialscontract interpretationappellate review
References
13
Case No. ADJ6778085
Regular
Jan 08, 2014

DANIEL LOBATO vs. PENHALL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ZURICH/CONVERIUM, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an Opinion and Order dismissing a Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Daniel Lobato v. Penhall International Corporation. The petitioner, who filed the reconsideration, has withdrawn their petition. Consequently, the WCAB has formally dismissed the reconsideration as requested.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionerDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ6778085November 14 2013 DecisionLong Beach District OfficeZurich/ConveriumSedgwick CMSPenhall International Corporation
References
0
Case No. 23
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company v. Allied Capital Corporation

This case addresses whether an arbitration panel exceeded its authority by reconsidering a "Partial Final Award" in an insurance dispute. The underlying dispute involved Ciena Capital LLC and Allied Capital Corporation seeking coverage from American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) after settling a federal qui tam action. Initially, the arbitration panel issued a partial award, which was later reconsidered and corrected to grant both indemnification and defense costs. AISLIC challenged this reconsideration, arguing the panel was functus officio. The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division ruling, holding that the initial "Partial Final Award" was not truly final because the parties had not mutually agreed to its finality. Consequently, the arbitration panel was deemed to have acted within its authority by reconsidering its initial determination, and the petition to vacate the corrected award was denied.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardReconsiderationArbitrator AuthorityInsurance CoverageIndemnificationDefense CostsQui Tam ActionNew York Court of Appeals
References
18
Case No. 13-10-00498-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2012

Service Corporation International and Sci Texas Funeral Services, Inc. v. Leticia Leal

This case involved an appeal from a trial court judgment that found Service Corporation International and SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc. liable for fraud concerning burial plots. The appellees, families of Rodolfo Garza and Charles Rogers, alleged fraud and sought damages for mental anguish. The jury found fraud but also found that most appellees had not filed within the four-year statute of limitations, a finding the trial court disregarded. On appeal, the Thirteenth District Court of Texas reversed and rendered judgment in favor of the appellants, concluding that all claims except Leticia Leal's were barred by limitations and that there was legally insufficient evidence for mental anguish damages for most appellees. Consequently, the awards for actual and exemplary damages were also reversed.

Fraudulent ConcealmentDiscovery RuleStatute of LimitationsMental Anguish DamagesExemplary DamagesBurial DisputesCemetery PracticesCorporate LiabilityTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate Procedure
References
25
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,021 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