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. M2005-00280-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2006

Henry Kent Sudberry v. Royal & Sun Alliance

Henry Kent Sudberry sued Royal & Sun Alliance, Investigations and Intelligence Services, Inc., and other defendants for alleged tortious interference with his employment at Nissan, retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, and related torts, following his termination. The central legal issue was determining the applicable statute of limitations: a one-year period for personal injury or a three-year period for property damage. Sudberry asserted he had an express or implied contract for continued employment, thus characterizing his job loss as an injury to property. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's dismissal, ruling that claims premised on a contract for continued employment would fall under the three-year statute of limitations for property damage, allowing those specific aspects of his claims to proceed.

Statute of LimitationsEmployment LawTortious InterferenceRetaliatory DischargeContractual RightsWorkers' Compensation ClaimProperty DamagePersonal InjuryAt-will EmploymentImplied Contract
References
17
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03576 [239 AD3d 752]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2025

Matter of Royal v. Royal

The case "Matter of Royal v Royal" involves an appeal by Albert Royal (father) against Mireille M. Royal (mother) regarding his retroactive child and spousal support obligations. The parties, married in 2014 with two children, separated in June 2018. In July 2018, the mother sought support. Subsequently, the father suffered significant injuries from a work accident and two motor vehicle accidents in late 2018 and 2019, rendering him unable to continue as a construction worker and leading him to receive public assistance after exhausting unemployment benefits. The Support Magistrate and Family Court used the father's 2018 income tax return to determine his support obligations for the period from July 2018 through December 2019, amounting to $48,200.22. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the 2018 income tax return did not accurately reflect the father's actual income during the period from November 2018 through December 2019 due to his injuries and inability to work. The matter was remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a recalculation of the father's income and, if appropriate, his retroactive support obligations for the specified period.

Family LawChild SupportSpousal SupportImputed IncomeRetroactive SupportIncome RecalculationParental Financial ObligationPersonal InjuryUnemployment BenefitsPublic Assistance
References
3
Case No. 2020-020384
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2021

Hibbitts, Greg v. Kim Royal dba Royal Guttering

Mr. Hibbitts filed a second Request for an Expedited Hearing on the Record, seeking medical and temporary benefits for alleged injuries sustained on July 15, 2020. He worked as a laborer for Royal Guttering and fell from a roof while instructing a co-worker. Royal Guttering did not have workers’ compensation insurance at the time of the injury. Despite providing uncontroverted evidence of his fall and hospital visit, Mr. Hibbitts failed to provide medical records documenting the injury, treatment, or need for continued medical care, nor any evidence of temporary disability. Consequently, the Court denied his request for medical and temporary disability benefits.

Expedited HearingTemporary BenefitsMedical BenefitsWorkers' Compensation InsuranceLaborer InjuryFall from RoofDisability BenefitsProof of InjuryMedical RecordsTennessee Law
References
1
Case No. M2007-02758-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Sudberry v. Royal & Sun Alliance

Employee Henry "Kent" Sudberry filed suit against several appellees, including Royal & Sun Alliance, after his employment was terminated following a workers' compensation claim settlement. Sudberry alleged tortious interference with an employment relationship and violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-50-109. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, ruling that Sudberry was an at-will employee and his claims were subject to a one-year statute of limitations (Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-104), rendering them time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Sudberry did not sufficiently rebut the presumption of at-will employment through his employment agreement or employee handbooks. Consequently, his claims were correctly subjected to the one-year statute of limitations for injuries to the person, rather than the three-year period for property injuries.

Employment-at-will doctrineStatute of limitationsTortious interference with employmentWorkers' compensation retaliationEmployee handbook effect on contractsSummary judgment standardLaw of the case doctrineContractual employmentPersonal injury claimsProperty interest in employment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin Co. v. Royal Insurance Co.

The Austin Company, an insured party, appealed a Chancellor's decision that its insurer, Royal Insurance Company, was authorized to settle a claim in good faith. Under a "retrospective premium" liability policy, Austin Company was responsible for claims up to $250,000, while Royal investigated and administered them. A key dispute arose from a clause requiring Royal to "consult with" Austin Company before settlements exceeding a certain amount, which Austin Company interpreted as granting it veto power. Royal settled an automobile accident judgment against Austin Company for $170,000, despite Austin Company's strong objections to appealing the original $152,000 judgment (which grew to nearly $190,000 with interest). The appellate court affirmed the Chancellor's ruling, finding the policy unambiguously gave Royal the right to settle, not Austin Company veto power, and that Royal's actions, including filing an appeal to keep options open and seeking indemnity for an appeal, were reasonable and in good faith. The court rejected Austin Company's argument that the burden of proof for good faith rested with the insurer, citing Tennessee precedents.

Insurance policyRetrospective premiumLiability insuranceSettlement authorityGood faithBad faithContract interpretationInsurer's rightsInsured's rightsAppeals
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Port Royal Development Corp. v. Braselton Construction Co.

Alex Garcia, an employee of Braselton Construction Company, sustained injuries at a Port Royal Development Corporation construction site and sued Royal. Royal impleaded Braselton for contribution and indemnity, but the trial court granted Braselton an instructed verdict. On appeal, Royal argued the trial court erred because worker's compensation immunity should not bar an indemnity claim from a pre-injury agreement, and because evidence of Braselton's negligence existed. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the indemnity agreement did not explicitly indemnify Royal for its own negligence as required by Texas law, thereby precluding Royal's claim for indemnity.

Worker's CompensationIndemnity AgreementExpress Negligence RuleGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentTexas LawAppellate ReviewInstructed Verdict
References
5
Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2004

Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. v. Royal Surplus Lines Insurance

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union), The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (Columbia), and Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. (Bovis) against Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Royal). The core issue is whether Royal's disclaimer of liability under Insurance Law § 3420 (d) was timely. The court found that Royal's disclaimer to Bovis and Columbia was untimely as a matter of law because its internal staffing issues were not a reasonable excuse for the delay. However, the court also ruled that § 3420 (d) does not apply to disclaimers between co-insurers, thus Royal's disclaimer was timely as to National Union. Furthermore, the court determined that Royal's "New Residential Work or Products Exclusion" did not apply to Millennium's work on a mixed-use building, thus obligating Royal to defend and indemnify Bovis and Columbia, and Royal was ordered to reimburse National Union for defense costs incurred from March 3, 2003.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of LiabilityDenial of CoverageInsurance Law § 3420 (d)Timeliness of DisclaimerInternal Staffing IssuesCo-Insurer LiabilityAdditional InsuredPolicy ExclusionNew Residential Work Exclusion
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1999

Capstead Mortgage Corp. v. Sun America Mortgage Corp.

Capstead Mortgage Corporation challenged a summary judgment ruling which denied its claims against Sun America Mortgage Corporation. Capstead had purchased mortgage loans from Sun America, including one where Kadeem Omari defaulted, leading Capstead to demand repurchase and subsequently foreclose on the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sun America based on the doctrine of election of remedies. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Capstead's action of bidding the entire balance at the foreclosure sale and taking title to the property constituted an election of remedies. Furthermore, the court found that the mortgage loan ceased to exist upon foreclosure, thus extinguishing Sun America's warranties and representations.

Summary JudgmentElection of RemediesMortgage LoanForeclosureBreach of ContractWarrantiesAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureReal Estate LawContractual Agreements
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2004

HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. v. Royal Surplus Lines Insurance

This case involves HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. (HRH) and National Union Fire Insurance Company (National) seeking to establish Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company's (Royal) obligation to defend HRH in an underlying action and reimburse legal fees. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially ruled that Royal was obligated to defend HRH and reimburse legal fees from December 30, 1999. Upon appeal, this order was modified to change the reimbursement start date to November 22, 2000, and otherwise affirmed. The court rejected Royal's argument that a specific endorsement overrode a general blanket additional insured endorsement, which Royal claimed would make them coprimary insurers with National. The duty to defend was clarified to be triggered upon the commencement of the underlying action against HRH.

Insurance disputeGeneral contractor liabilityAdditional insured endorsementDuty to defendInsurance reimbursementSummary judgmentPolicy interpretationConstruction site accidentPrimary insuranceOther insurance clause
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 206 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