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

Custom Transit, L.P., Richway Cartage, Inc., and Custom Operations, LLC v. Flatrolled Steel, Inc.

Flatrolled Steel Inc. sued Custom Transit, L.P., Custom Operations, LLC, and Richway Cartage, Inc., for breach of contract, negligence, and conversion related to damaged and lost steel coils. A jury found Custom Transit liable for breach of contract and conversion, and Custom Transit and Richway liable for negligence and gross negligence. The trial court entered a final judgment on July 9, 2010, allowing Flatrolled to recover contract damages from Custom Transit and actual and exemplary damages from Richway. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding contract damages and attorney's fees against Custom Transit and Custom Operations. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment for actual and exemplary damages against Richway, rendering a take-nothing judgment for Flatrolled against Richway, finding insufficient evidence to establish a duty of care for a negligent activity claim.

Contract LawNegligenceGross NegligenceConversionBreach of ContractEconomic Loss RuleAccord and SatisfactionProperty Owner RuleExpert TestimonySufficiency of Evidence
References
47
Case No. 2-07-133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2008

Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. D/B/A Benchmark Custom Homes and Mark David Rotella v. Joan Cutting

This case involves an appeal by Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes and Mark David Rotella (Appellants) against Joan Cutting (Appellee). Appellants challenged the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment and deny their motion for a new trial, primarily arguing a lack of proper notice. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that evidence of selective refusal of service established constructive notice. The court also upheld Mark Rotella's joint and several liability, citing his personal guarantee in the construction contract and his liability for tortious acts as an agent. Appellants' claim regarding a lack of fraudulent intent was overruled due to insufficient briefing.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementsDue ProcessConstructive NoticeService of ProcessJoint and Several LiabilityCorporate Agent LiabilityFraudulent IntentAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 2-07-226-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2008

Mark Rotella, Individually, and Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc., D/B/A Benchmark Custom Homes v. Dozier Cabinet Works, Inc.

Appellants Mark Rotella, individually, and Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc., d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes, appealed a trial court's default judgment in favor of Dozier Cabinet Works, Inc. Appellants contended that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for new trial, arguing they failed to set up a meritorious defense. The court found that mere allegations of beliefs or legal conclusions were insufficient for a meritorious defense. Appellants also argued that the trial court erred in holding Rotella vicariously liable under the Texas Property Code, claiming no contract existed in the record. However, the default judgment stated that the trial court heard evidence and found Rotella personally liable under Chapter 162 of the Texas Property Code. The appellants failed to provide a reporter's record to show error in the trial court's judgment. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionMeritorious DefenseVicarious LiabilityTexas Property CodeConstruction Trust FundsAppellate ReviewReporter's Record BurdenCivil Procedure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Custom-Crete, Inc. v. K-Bar Services, Inc.

Custom-Crete, Inc. appealed a default judgment in a case where K-Bar Services, Inc. sued them on an alleged oral contract. The appellate court found that Custom-Crete's non-attorney corporate representative filed a defective answer, which was nonetheless sufficient to prevent a no-answer default. The court also determined that Custom-Crete did not receive the mandatory forty-five days' notice for the trial setting, and their non-attorney representative's presence at trial did not constitute a waiver of this right. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's default judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial, emphasizing that mere negligence does not justify denying a new trial under the Craddock test when due process is violated.

Default JudgmentAppellate ReviewDue ProcessNotice RequirementsCorporate RepresentationNon-Attorney RepresentationMotion for New TrialWaiverTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAbuse of Discretion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.B. Custom Design & Building v. Clawson

The appeal stems from a Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) lawsuit filed by L.W. Clawson and Linda Clawson against J.B. Custom Design and Building for damages related to faulty foundation repair services. The jury found that J.B. Custom Design engaged in unworkmanlike conduct, misrepresentations, and knowingly committed DTPA violations, awarding actual and mental anguish damages. The trial court initially awarded discretionary treble damages and set aside the mental anguish award. On appeal, the court ruled that the trial court erred in determining discretionary damages without a jury issue and in setting aside the jury's findings on mental anguish. The judgment was reformed, reducing discretionary damages by $14,000 and reinstating $8,000 for mental anguish, resulting in a total judgment of $18,000 in damages plus $9,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPAfoundation repairunworkmanlike mannermisrepresentationknowing conductmental anguish damagestreble damagesjury findingsjudgment notwithstanding verdict
References
17
Case No. 13-09-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2010

Robert Sutherland, Jesus De La Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body v. Robert Keith Spencer

This case is an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial after a default judgment was entered against Robert Sutherland, Jesse Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body (appellants) in favor of Robert Keith Spencer (appellee). The appellants argued that the default judgment was void due to improper service and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for new trial, contending they satisfied the Craddock test. The court addressed the misnomer issue regarding service on Jesse Garza and Southern Customs, finding that the correct parties were served and not misled. Furthermore, the court concluded that the appellants failed to meet the first prong of the Craddock test, as their failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, thus affirming the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialService of ProcessMisnomerCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
38
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05313 [119 AD3d 758]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Perla v. Daytree Custom Builders, Inc.

Milton Perla and his wife initiated an action for personal injuries against Daytree Custom Builders, Inc. after Mr. Perla fell from a roof during employment and received Workers' Compensation benefits. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation and sought discovery sanctions or to strike the defendant's Workers' Compensation exclusivity defense. The Supreme Court denied their motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant was an alter ego of Mr. Perla's employer, which could limit remedies to Workers' Compensation. Additionally, the court found the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate willful discovery non-compliance and lacked a good faith affirmation for the discovery dispute. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ProcedureRooftop FallEmployer LiabilityConstruction Accident
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tillman v. Triou's Custom Homes, Inc.

Charles Tillman, a truck driver for Phelps Cement Products, Inc., sustained a fractured leg after falling from his flatbed truck while unloading cement blocks at a construction site. He sued Triou’s Custom Homes, Inc. (general contractor) and Zurich Masonry, Inc. (subcontractor) alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted Tillman partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, but this court reversed that decision, concluding that a flatbed truck is not an elevated work surface for the purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also reinstated the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Triou, finding specific Industrial Code violations applicable, but upheld the dismissal of the § 241 (6) claim against Zurich as they were not Triou's agent.

Construction accidentFall from heightFlatbed truckLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Industrial CodeGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor liabilityVicarious liabilityCommon-law indemnification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pridemark Custom Plating, Inc. v. Upjohn Co.

The Upjohn Company appealed judgments in favor of Pridemark Custom Plating, Inc. and MiChris, Inc. after a fire destroyed a building insulated with Upjohn's product. Plaintiffs sued for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and fraud, alleging inadequate warnings about the insulation's flammability. The appellate court found that while the statute of limitations could apply, the jury's finding of fraud and concealment by Upjohn precluded its defense. The judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial due to the prejudicial admission of evidence concerning an employee's death, which was deemed to have unfairly influenced the jury's decision on property damages. The court also provided guidance on several other issues for the retrial, including jury instructions and the handling of third-party claims.

Product LiabilityFire DamagesNegligenceStrict LiabilityFraudMisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsEvidence AdmissibilityPrejudicial ErrorPunitive Damages
References
20
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08502
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Eddy v. John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant, John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc., and denying the plaintiff, Mark Eddy's, cross-motion for summary judgment. The case involved a construction worker who was injured after falling from a moving pickup truck while sitting on an unsecured cast iron grate. The court ruled that the accident did not involve an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1) because the fall from the truck's tailgate was considered a usual and ordinary danger of a construction site, not an extraordinary elevation hazard. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's decision to ride in a hazardous position on the tailgate, despite being warned, constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby precluding any liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6).

Labor LawWorkplace AccidentConstruction InjurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseElevation HazardPickup TruckUnsecured LoadAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 1,924 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