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
Jun 26, 2008

6085 Strickland Associates v. Whitmore Group, Ltd.

This case involves an action where the plaintiff sued insurance brokers for negligent failure to procure insurance. The plaintiff alleged that the Genstar policy, intended for a vacant property, should have remained active alongside the Sirius policy, which covered construction-related liabilities. The Genstar policy was cancelled due to unpaid premiums. The plaintiff contended that the brokers had a duty to reinstate the policy or procure replacement coverage. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant brokers' cross-motion, finding no breach of duty. The plaintiff failed to pay the premium after receiving a cancellation notice, and there was no evidence of a specific request for the Genstar policy's renewal or concurrent operation with the Sirius policy. The brokers fulfilled their obligation by securing the Sirius policy.

Negligent failure to procure insuranceInsurance brokersSummary judgmentPolicy cancellationPremium nonpaymentConstruction insuranceLitigation costsDuty of brokerReplacement policyInsurance Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.

Luis Martinez Guzman, an attorney, sued his former employer, El Paso Natural Gas Co. (EPNG), alleging constructive discharge and discrimination based on race and national origin, including denial of promotions and harassment. EPNG filed a motion for summary judgment on Guzman's various claims, including failure-to-promote under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misconduct, violations of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract (ERISA). The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Claims regarding failure to promote to the Mojave board of directors, failure to promote to Vice President of Marketing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the ERISA claim were denied, allowing them to proceed. Summary judgment was granted for EPNG on the failure to promote to Executive Vice-President of Mojave, breach of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misconduct, and public policy claims.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment LawConstructive DischargeFailure to PromoteSummary JudgmentERISAEmotional DistressBreach of Contract
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Michaels v. City of Buffalo

On January 12, 1986, John Michaels died after an ambulance he was in experienced mechanical failure, causing a delay in his transport to a hospital. His estate subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging negligent maintenance of the ambulance and that the resulting delay contributed to his death. Memorial, the ambulance company, held a "business auto policy" that covered damages "caused by an accident" and sought defense and indemnification from its insurer. The insurer disclaimed coverage, prompting Memorial to initiate a third-party action. While the Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Memorial, the Appellate Division reversed, concluding that mechanical failure and delay did not constitute an "accident" under the policy terms. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the term "accident" in an automobile insurance policy typically refers to an event involving trauma, violence, casualty, or the application of external force, none of which were present in this case of mechanical breakdown.

Insurance Policy InterpretationAutomobile Insurance"Accident" DefinitionMechanical FailureDelay in ServiceDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of AppealsUnforeseen Event
References
14
Case No. 14-09-00456-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2010

Jose A. Perez and Nancy C. Perez v. Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company

In this insurance coverage dispute, the owners of a vehicle damaged in a collision appeal the trial court’s judgment that the insurer has no duty to defend the insured or pay damages arising from the accident. On October 4, 2007, Maria Nambo, an unlicensed driver, was involved in an accident. Her father, Mario Nambo, had an automobile insurance policy with Old American County Fire Insurance Company. Old American rescinded the policy after learning Maria resided with Mario and was not disclosed. Mario had warranted that he and Virginia were the only drivers and residents over fifteen, and later, deemed admissions showed he intentionally failed to disclose Maria's residence and unlicensed status to deceive Old American. The trial court ruled in favor of Old American, declaring the policy properly rescinded and Old American had no duty to defend or pay damages to the Nambos or Jose Perez. The trial court also dismissed the Perezes' claims with prejudice for failure to appear. The Perezes appealed, challenging the denial of their summary judgment motion, the notice of trial setting, the legal sufficiency of the evidence, and the trial court's failure to provide a licensed translator for Mario Nambo. The appellate court overruled all issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Automobile InsuranceInsurance CoveragePolicy RescissionMaterial MisrepresentationDeceptive Trade Practices ActSummary JudgmentTrial NoticeLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceInterpreter RightsDue Process
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2007

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. St. Barnabas Community Enterprises, Inc.

This case concerns the arbitrability of disputes between an unnamed petitioner and its insured, St. Barnabas, over retrospective premiums and credits from workers' compensation policies covering 1995-1998 and 2000-2001. The Supreme Court's order, which compelled arbitration and denied St. Barnabas's cross-motion to dismiss, was modified. The appellate court affirmed arbitration for the 1995-1998 policies due to explicit arbitration clauses. However, arbitration for the 2000-2001 policies was stayed as they lacked such clauses and provided for litigation. Claims of fraudulent inducement related to the earlier policies were referred to arbitrators, as they did not specifically challenge the arbitration agreement itself.

ArbitrationWorkers' Compensation PoliciesRetrospective PremiumsInsurance DisputesPolicy InterpretationFraudulent InducementContract LawNew York CourtsAppellate DecisionJurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catania v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

This case involves a submitted controversy under sections 546 to 548 of the Civil Practice Act, concerning whether a liability policy issued to John Schiro extends coverage to the plaintiff for injuries sustained by Schiro's wife. Schiro's wife alleged negligence against her spouse in the operation of his vehicle during his employment with the plaintiff. The court analyzed Insurance Law section 167 (subd. 3), which states that policies do not cover liability for spousal injuries unless expressly provided. Citing Morgan v. Greater New York Taxpayers Mut. Ins. Assn., the court treated the policy as if issued to the plaintiff alone, determining that Schiro's wife is not the plaintiff's spouse, thus making section 167 (subd. 3) inapplicable. The decision, supported by Manhattan Cas. Co. v. Cholakis, concluded that the insurer is liable. Therefore, judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to defend the pending negligence action and pay any judgment up to the policy limits.

Liability PolicyInsurance CoverageSpousal LiabilityCivil Practice ActInsurance LawNegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentAutomobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityInterspousal Immunity
References
2
Case No. 10-86-161-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 1987

Jones v. Houston General Ins. Co.

Eddie Jones, an employee of Hutchins Grass Company, died in the course of employment on September 14, 1977. His beneficiaries sought death benefits under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act from Houston General Insurance Company, which had issued an assigned-risk policy to Hutchins. The carrier cancelled the policy on June 22, 1977, due to the employer's failure to pay interim premiums and file payroll reports. The trial court issued a take-nothing judgment in favor of Houston General, finding the policy was cancelled prior to Jones' death. On appeal, the beneficiaries contended the cancellation was ineffective, arguing only the Assigned Risk Pool could cancel the policy. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco, affirmed the judgment, holding that the carrier had the authority to cancel the assigned-risk policy without prior directive from the Assigned Risk Pool, consistent with the policy's terms and statutory interpretation.

Insurance Policy CancellationAssigned Risk PlanDeath Benefits ClaimWorker's Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationPremium Non-PaymentEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewTexas LawAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trojcak v. Valiant Millwrighting & Warehousing, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the proper cancellation of an employer's workers' compensation policy. A claimant was injured in September 1995, leading to a dispute when the carrier claimed the policy was canceled in June 1995 due to nonpayment. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled the policy was improperly canceled, citing Banking Law § 576 and estoppel. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the cancellation adhered to Banking Law § 576's notice requirements. This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the statutory notice provisions were met and that the finance agency and carrier were not estopped from canceling the policy despite prior acceptance of late payments.

Workers' Compensation Policy CancellationBanking Law § 576Estoppel DoctrineNotice RequirementsLate PaymentsInsurance Coverage DisputePolicy DefaultAppellate ReviewStatutory CompliancePremium Finance Agreement
References
7
Case No. 01-23-00178-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2025

Jennifer Cook v. Memorial Hermann Hospital Health System

Jennifer Cook sued Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) alleging religious and disability discrimination under the Texas Labor Code and wrongful termination, stemming from MHHS's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The trial court granted MHHS's motion to dismiss, citing Cook's failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the non-viability of her public policy claim. Cook appealed, challenging the dismissal and the denial of her motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the public policy claim but reversed the denial of a new trial for the discrimination claims, finding Cook met the Craddock factors by showing her failure to respond was unintentional, she had a meritorious defense (EEOC right-to-sue letter), and no undue prejudice to MHHS.

Employment DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationWrongful TerminationCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateRule 91a Motion to DismissCraddock RuleAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionAppellate ReviewMotion for New Trial
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Overby v. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK & JP MORGAN CHASE

Plaintiff Darryl Overby sued Chase Manhattan Bank and J.P. Morgan Chase for negligence, racial discrimination, mental duress, and wrongful cancellation of a life insurance policy, seeking ten million dollars. Overby, an African American, alleged racial discrimination based on the bank's failure to suggest investment options and unauthorized transactions. He also claimed negligence for not being offered investment opportunities and mental duress linked to the alleged discrimination. The court granted Chase's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent. It also dismissed banking claims as time-barred due to Overby's failure to notify the bank within contractual and statutory timeframes, and found no evidence of his life insurance policy ever being canceled.

Summary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationNegligenceMental DuressElectronic Funds Transfer ActBanking ClaimsPro Se LitigantContractual ObligationTimelinessLack of Evidence
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 6,898 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