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

Mitchell v. Mitchell

This case addresses whether prejudgment interest, awarded to a former wife from a former husband based on a disputed property settlement agreement, needs to be specifically pleaded as special damages under Rule 9.07 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals had ruled that such pleading was necessary. However, the Supreme Court of Tennessee concluded that the award of prejudgment interest was authorized under a prayer for general relief, considering it a necessary result of the failure to pay an obligation. The Court likened prejudgment interest to attorney's fees, which are discretionary and do not always require special pleading when the amount is certain or ascertainable. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.

Prejudgment InterestSpecial DamagesGeneral DamagesDivorce DecreeProperty Settlement AgreementRules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewEquityDiscretionary AwardAttorney's Fees
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1993

C & H NATIONWIDE, INC. v. Thompson

This case concerns the allocation of liability among defendants under Texas's Comparative Responsibility Law in a wrongful death action. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the lower court's judgment regarding the calculation of prejudgment interest, the sufficiency of evidence for lost inheritance damages, and the principles of contribution among jointly and severally liable defendants. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case, holding that prejudgment interest applies to the entire judgment including future damages, and found no evidence to support the award of lost inheritance damages. It also clarified the rules for contribution among defendants.

Wrongful DeathComparative ResponsibilityPrejudgment InterestFuture DamagesLost InheritanceSettlementContributionTort LawStatutory InterpretationDue Process
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

This opinion addresses an appeal from nine consolidated asbestos cases where a jury found liability but awarded no past damages to several plaintiffs. The court, HEDGES, Justice, reviewed the proper standard of appellate review for zero damages verdicts, distinguishing between objective and subjective symptoms of injury and adhering to the Pool v. Ford Motor Co. standard. The court upheld the jury's zero past damages awards for most plaintiffs, finding them not against the great weight of the evidence. However, it reversed the trial court's application of the statute of limitations to the Spikes family's claim, remanding it for further proceedings. Additionally, the court sustained the point of error regarding prejudgment interest calculation, ruling that under Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., interest should accrue six months after the last day of asbestos exposure, rather than six months after the lawsuit filing date, and remanded the Burt and Friley cases for recalculation. The court also addressed, but did not rule on the merits of, an expert testimony admissibility challenge due to procedural errors by the plaintiffs.

Asbestos litigationzero damagesprejudgment interestappellate reviewcomparative negligencestrict liabilitylatent diseasestatute of limitationsexpert testimonymedical examination
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of M.C.R.

This case involves an appeal by the Attorney General challenging a district court's allocation of prejudgment interest on child support arrearages owed by Lisa Harris to Michael Riou. Initially, a child support master awarded the arrearages but split the accrued interest equally between Harris and Riou, seeking an equitable resolution. The district court adopted this ruling. The appellate court, finding the Attorney General had standing due to its role as a Title IV-D agency and an assignment of rights, determined that the trial court lacked the discretion to modify or reduce statutory prejudgment interest on child support arrearages. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded for recalculation to include all accrued interest.

child supportprejudgment interestchild support arrearagesstandingFamily Codeappellate reviewjudicial discretionequityTexas lawTitle IV-D services
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2011

United States Ex Rel. Lamesa National Bank v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (In Re Schooler)

This memorandum opinion addresses the motion for prejudgment interest filed by Lamesa National Bank (LNB) against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Liberty Mutual was previously found liable to the bankruptcy estate of Robert and Tina Schooler for $112,247.66. The court exercised its discretion to award prejudgment interest, citing federal law and a strong presumption in favor of such awards, which aim to compensate the estate for the loss of funds. Adopting guidance from state law for the interest rate, the court set it at 5.0% compounded annually, with accrual commencing from the complaint's filing date of September 8, 2009.

Prejudgment InterestBankruptcy EstateFederal LawDiscretionary AwardAccrual DateInterest RateFifth CircuitNorthern District of TexasBankruptcy CodeInsurance Liability
References
15
Case No. 13-06-112-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2008

Michael Gibney, Individually and on Behalf of Micro Blend, Inc. v. Roy Culver, Jr., Culver Interests and Ana-Tech, Inc.

Michael Gibney, individually and on behalf of Micro-Blend, Inc., appealed a judgment from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas. Gibney had filed a shareholder derivative suit for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and an individual claim for shareholder oppression against Roy Culver, Jr., Culver Interests, and Ana-Tech, Inc. The trial court awarded Gibney $250,000 for shareholder oppression but dismissed his derivative claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Gibney's derivative claims, finding them time-barred or lacking evidence for damages. The court also reversed the finding of shareholder oppression, concluding there was insufficient evidence for excessive compensation and no other acts constituting oppression, rendering a take-nothing judgment for Roy Culver, Jr. Finally, Gibney's request for prejudgment interest was denied.

Shareholder Derivative SuitFraud ClaimsBreach of Fiduciary DutyShareholder OppressionDirected VerdictStatute of LimitationsFraudulent ConcealmentDiscovery RuleExcessive CompensationClose Corporation
References
43
Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1998

Win Myint and wife Patti KI. Myint v. Allstate Insurance Company

Win and Patti Myint sued Allstate Insurance Company after their property was damaged by two fires and Allstate denied their claims for water and fire damage. The Myints' claims included breach of insurance policy, violation of the bad faith statute, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The trial court dismissed the CPA claim, but the jury found Allstate liable for $46,000 for fire damage, while rejecting the bad faith claim. The trial court also awarded prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals reversed the prejudgment interest ruling and affirmed the dismissal of the CPA claim, reasoning that the bad faith statute was the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed the Court of Appeals regarding the applicability of the CPA to insurance companies, holding that the CPA is complementary to insurance regulations. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the Myints' specific CPA claim, finding Allstate's conduct in handling the claim was not unfair or deceptive. The Court also reversed the Court of Appeals' decision on prejudgment interest, reinstating the trial court's award.

Insurance LawConsumer Protection ActBad Faith Insurance ClaimPrejudgment InterestStatutory InterpretationExclusive RemedyInsurance Policy DenialProperty DamageArson ClaimEquitable Principles
References
20
Case No. NO. 01-S-01-9612-CH-00238
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1998

Win Myint and Patti Kay Myint, et. ux. v. Allstate Insurance Company

Win and Patti Myint sued Allstate Insurance Company after their claims for water and fire damage to their rental property were denied. Allstate denied the fire claim, suspecting arson and increased hazard. The jury found Allstate liable for policy breach but not bad faith. The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed whether the Consumer Protection Act applies to insurance companies and if prejudgment interest was appropriately awarded. The Court affirmed the Consumer Protection Act's general applicability to the insurance industry but found Allstate's conduct in this case was not unfair or deceptive, thus denying relief under the Act. It reversed the Court of Appeals' decision regarding prejudgment interest, affirming the trial court's award.

Insurance lawConsumer Protection ActBad faith claimProperty damageArsonPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationEquitable remediesAbuse of discretion
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moseley v. State Department of Highways & Public Transportation

This case addresses the right of a workers' compensation carrier to receive prejudgment interest as part of its recovery when it intervenes in an injured employee's third-party action for reimbursement. The trial court initially denied the carrier's claim for prejudgment interest, but the court of appeals reversed this decision. The Texas Supreme Court granted Moseley's application for writ of error, subsequently reversing the court of appeals' judgment. Citing *Jones v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.*, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's original decision, holding that a workers' compensation carrier cannot recover prejudgment interest under Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307, § 6a.

Prejudgment InterestSubrogation ClaimInterventionThird-Party ActionTexas LawAppellate ReviewWrit of ErrorReimbursementInsurance CarrierEmployer Liability
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 11,243 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