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. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. 03-01-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2002

John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C./Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association/John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C.

This case involves cross-appeals from a judgment by the District Court of Travis County. John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C. (Berkel) sued the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) and a receiver, seeking to enforce a contract for $6,306, which represented a previously approved "covered claim" for legal services. The trial court awarded Berkel the $6,306 but denied claims for statutory attorney's fees, prejudgment, and postjudgment interest. TPCIGA appealed the $6,306 award, arguing the claim was not a covered claim, but the appellate court affirmed this part, holding the Receiver's prior determination was binding. Berkel appealed the denial of attorney's fees and interest, and the appellate court reversed and remanded this part for further proceedings.

Insurance LawReceivershipImpaired InsurerCovered ClaimsStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestSummary JudgmentContract Enforcement
References
9
Case No. 03-16-00270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

AC Interests L.P., Formerly American Coatings, L.P. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

AC Interests, L.P. appeals the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) concerning the denial of emission credits. AC Interests argues that the TCEQ's motion to dismiss under Rule 91a was improperly granted, as their claims have a basis in both law and fact. They contend that their application for emission credit certification met all legal requirements, and the TCEQ's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, AC Interests highlights that the Commission has since indicated a willingness to allow emission credits for area sources, which they are classified as. The appellant asserts that procedural issues, including a shortened appeal time and an alleged violation of due process, unduly harmed their ability to obtain earned emission credits. AC Interests seeks a reversal of the district court's dismissal to pursue its claim for vested property rights in emission credits.

Emission CreditsEnvironmental LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTCEQArea SourcesMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureAir PollutionVOC Emissions
References
18
Case No. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. 479,513
Regular Panel Decision

Berkel v. Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

John W. Berkel, P.C. sued the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association and Stephen S. Durish, receiver for National County Mutual Fire Insurance Company, to recover $6,306 for legal services provided in defending an insured. The Receiver had approved Berkel's claim as 'covered' but issued a non-negotiable joint check. The trial court awarded Berkel the $6,306 but denied statutory attorney's fees, prejudgment, and postjudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the $6,306 award, holding the Receiver's prior determination was binding. However, it reversed and remanded the denial of attorney's fees and postjudgment interest, and partially reversed/remanded prejudgment interest, concluding that state law provisions do not preclude such recoveries when payment of an approved covered claim is improperly withheld.

Insurance LawWorkers' CompensationReceivershipGuaranty AssociationCovered ClaimsAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestContract EnforcementStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 01-15-00260-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2015

Joan DeYoung, Stephen DeYoung, M.D., and David DeYoung v. William L. Maynard, Individually and as of the Estate of Judy Page Maynard, and Maynard Properties, L.P.

The DeYoungs, who held ownership interests in Russell, Page & Partners, sued Judy Page Maynard, William L. Maynard, and Maynard Properties, L.P., alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty and care, conversion, and breach of contract. The lawsuit stemmed from the alleged transfer of partnership property to William L. Maynard and Maynard Properties, L.P., without adequate notice or compensation to the other partners. The trial court initially granted the Maynards' no-evidence motion for summary judgment, which was subsequently designated as a final judgment. As appellants, the DeYoungs argue on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error by granting more relief than requested, failing to specify the elements of claims lacking evidence, improperly shifting the burden of proof on self-dealing, and disregarding competent evidence presented by the DeYoungs. They seek a reversal of the trial court's final judgment and a remand for trial on all asserted causes of action.

Summary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyDuty of Loyalty and CareConversionBreach of ContractReal Estate PartnershipProperty TransferSelf-DealingProcedural ErrorAppellate Procedure
References
30
Case No. E2009-01288-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2010

James Erwin v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

Plaintiff James Erwin appealed an attorney's fee award in a medical malpractice action where his employer's workers' compensation carrier, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, intervened to recover its subrogation interest. The Trial Court awarded a specific amount to Erwin's attorney for services rendered in recovering Travelers' subrogation interest, which Erwin contended was inadequate. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, finding the fee and expense award reasonable. The appellate court reviewed the Trial Court's apportionment of fees, noting that Erwin's counsel primarily focused on the malpractice claim for Erwin, necessitating Travelers to hire its own counsel. The decision highlighted the importance of a trial judge's discretion in evaluating attorney services during a trial.

Attorney's feessubrogationworkers' compensationmedical malpracticeappellate reviewpro ratalitigation expensesintervenorcontingency feetrial court discretion
References
3
Case No. 03-15-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2015

California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.

The appellants, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA), and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), collectively "Guaranty Associations," are appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee, Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ("Hill Bros."). The suit was filed on March 31, 2009, alleging Hill Bros. failed to reimburse the Guaranty Associations for payments of workers' compensation benefits and claim handling expenses within the deductible limits of a policy issued by the insolvent Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Hill Bros. based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the cause of action accrued on April 1, 2002. The Guaranty Associations argue that the accrual date is incorrect, as their statutory obligations had not been triggered, payments had not been made, and demand for reimbursement had not occurred by that date. They also contend that their compliance with Pennsylvania law (the "Pennsylvania Act") in seeking reimbursement through Legion in Liquidation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for any delay, making reasonableness a fact question. Furthermore, they assert the policy was a continuing contract, and the statute of limitations should not have accrued until full performance on April 28, 2009. Alternatively, they argue that claims for deductible payments made within four years of filing suit (March 31, 2005) are not barred.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty AssociationStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeductible ReimbursementInsolvencyInsurance PolicyContinuing ContractPennsylvania ActTravis County
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. 03-10-00385-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2011

John H. Carney & Associates v. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association

John H. Carney & Associates (Carney) sued the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (the Association) to recover damages from a judgment against an insolvent insurer, Texas Select Lloyds Insurance Company. Carney asserted the judgment was a 'covered claim' under the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Act, arising from an assigned interest in a first-party homeowners policy claim of their former client, Joy Lincoln. The Association moved for summary judgment, arguing Carney was not an 'insured' or 'third-party claimant' as defined by the Act, among other grounds. The trial court granted summary judgment without stating the specific grounds. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Guaranty Act's remedy is limited to 'insureds' and 'third-party claimants' and does not extend to assignees, based on statutory construction and comparison with similar laws.

Insurance LawGuaranty ActAssignee RightsSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAppellate ReviewInsurer InsolvencyCovered ClaimAttorney's FeesProperty Damage
References
91
Showing 1-10 of 4,791 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