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. 2000 WL 178191
Regular Panel Decision

Selby v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance

Adrian and Jill Selby sued Principal Life Insurance Company, alleging various errors in processing their health insurance claims. They challenged Principal's interpretation of an infertility treatment exclusion and its claims review procedures under ERISA. The court considered motions for class certification for four proposed classes. Class I, addressing Principal's online claims review process for altering diagnoses, was certified. Classes II and III, concerning medically necessary infertility treatments and New York Insurance Law violations respectively, were not certified for class-wide adjudication, though individual claims were permitted. Class IV, challenging the sufficiency of claim denial letters, was not certified immediately due to the named plaintiffs' lack of standing for injunctive relief, but conditional certification was offered upon identification of a new suitable plaintiff.

ERISAClass ActionHealth InsuranceClaims DenialInfertility ExclusionOnline ReviewMedical BenefitsStandingFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Benefit Plans
References
23
Case No. 12-13-00175-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

Guy Sparkman v. Microsoft Corporation, SupportSpace, Inc. as Agent for Microsoft Corp., Omar Franco, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Robert Doe, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Karen Phillips

Guy Sparkman appealed the trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation and others. Sparkman alleged that Microsoft's representatives remotely accessed his computer and caused issues, which he believed was part of a scheme to coerce him into purchasing updated software. He filed a suit based on breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The trial court declared Sparkman a vexatious litigant and dismissed his suit for failing to furnish a required $7,500 security. On appeal, Sparkman raised six issues, including challenges to judicial authority and bias, the constitutionality of the vexatious litigant statute, and due process. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling all of Sparkman's arguments.

Vexatious LitigantDismissalAppealConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionJudicial RecusalJudicial AuthorityPro Se Litigant
References
30
Case No. 02 MDL 1499, No. 153, 03 Civ. 4524, No. 83
Regular Panel Decision

In Re South African Apartheid Litigation

This opinion addresses two class actions brought by South Africans against multinational corporations under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), alleging aiding and abetting torts related to the apartheid system. Specifically, the Court considered Fujitsu Limited's motion to dismiss claims against it. Plaintiffs contended that Fujitsu's subsidiary, International Computers Limited (ICL), supplied computer systems used by the apartheid-era South African government to enforce racial pass laws. The Court found that while ICL had a relationship with the South African government that predated its deep relationship with Fujitsu, the plaintiffs failed to present plausible allegations of a principal-agent relationship between Fujitsu and ICL during the relevant period of ICL's alleged unlawful activities (1981-1986). The decision to grant Fujitsu's motion to dismiss was based on the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating Fujitsu's direct control over ICL's specific business activities concerning South Africa's pass laws, distinguishing it from other cases where vicarious liability was established.

Alien Tort Claims ActApartheid LitigationCorporate LiabilityVicarious LiabilityMotion to DismissAgency RelationshipSouth AfricaInternational LawHuman RightsFujitsu
References
27
Case No. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. NO. 02-12-00517-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) v. Agent Systems, Inc.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Agent Systems, Inc. The core dispute involved a contract for validating fareboxes, which DART and the T eventually ceased work on, leading Agent Systems to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and later sue for damages under a termination for convenience clause. The appellate court reviewed issues regarding the standard of review, jury charge, sufficiency of evidence, and the award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits, finding sufficient evidence that DART and the T breached the contract by improperly terminating it for default instead of for convenience. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, adjusting the rate from six to five percent and requiring the trial court to redetermine the accrual date.

Breach of ContractGovernment ContractTermination for ConvenienceTermination for DefaultJury Verdict ReviewSufficiency of EvidencePrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestContractual DisputeAdministrative Remedies
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tower Insurance v. Mike's Pipe Yard & Building Supply Corp.

An insurer (Plaintiff) filed a motion for summary judgment to disclaim coverage for an underlying personal injury action, citing the insured's (Mike’s Pipe Yard and Building Supply) failure to provide timely notice of an occurrence as stipulated in the liability insurance policy. The insured had initially informed its broker about the incident, assuming the broker acted as the insurer's agent; however, no such principal-agent relationship existed. The trial court initially denied the plaintiff's motion, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion and declaring that the plaintiff had no duty to defend or indemnify in the underlying action due to the untimely notification.

Insurance Coverage DisputeTimely Notice ProvisionDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Broker AgencyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPersonal Injury Action
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02403
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

Betancourt v. City of New York

Plaintiff, an assistant principal, was injured by a student with a history of violent behavior while assisting a social worker in restraining the student. She sought to impose liability on municipal defendants, citing the student's history, alleged assurances from the principal, and failures in safety protocols, predicating her theory on the existence of a special relationship. However, the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint for failing to allege or provide a factual basis for such a special relationship in her initial filings. Furthermore, her subsequent testimony contradicted her later affidavit regarding definite promises and justifiable reliance, thereby failing to establish the necessary elements for a special relationship. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Municipal Tort LiabilitySpecial Relationship DoctrineNegligenceNotice of ClaimSummary JudgmentFeigned Issue of FactAffirmative Duty to ProtectJustifiable RelianceSchool SafetyAssistant Principal Injury
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Millan v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Catherine Stone and joined by Chief Justice Phil Hardberger and Justice Alma L. López, argues against the majority's decision to affirm a directed verdict on fraud. The dissent asserts that the trial court erred by not allowing a jury issue on whether Dean Witter was vicariously liable for the fraudulent acts of its agent, Miguel Millan. It argues that Millan's actions, though wrongful and potentially criminal, were within the scope of his general authority as a broker and were foreseeable. The opinion cites legal precedents for principal liability for an agent's fraud, even without the principal's knowledge or direct benefit, and emphasizes that the scope of authority is generally coextensive with the business entrusted to the agent. The dissent contends that Dean Witter derived financial benefit from Millan's actions and that the jury should have determined the issue of fraud liability, advocating for a reversal of the trial court's judgment on this point.

Vicarious LiabilityAgent FraudScope of EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorBroker LiabilityDirected VerdictDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewFraud ClaimEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Agents Insurance Co. v. Arredondo

General Agents Insurance Company of America (GAINSCO) appealed a summary judgment that declared it had a duty to defend and indemnify Robert C. Arredondo in a personal injury lawsuit brought by Rafael Saenz. Saenz was injured while working for Agency Services, a subcontractor of Arredondo's business, United Erectors. GAINSCO argued that an exclusion in Arredondo's commercial general liability policy for injuries arising from subcontractor operations precluded coverage. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the "arising out of" language in the exclusion unambiguously excluded coverage due to the causal relationship with the subcontractor's operations. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination of attorney's fees.

Insurance CoverageSubcontractor ExclusionDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyNegligenceSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentCausal ConnectionArising Out OfTexas Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gallagher ex rel. Gallagher v. Houlihan Lawrence Real Estate

Claimant, the wife of a deceased real estate agent, sought workers' compensation benefits, asserting her husband was an employee of the real estate firm. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, relying on an independent contractor agreement. On appeal, the court found that the WCLJ prematurely closed the hearing, preventing the claimant from presenting further evidence regarding the employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to fully develop the record on this crucial issue.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewRemittalSubstantial EvidenceRight of ControlReal Estate AgentDeath BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,510 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