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. 01-02-01008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2003

Landmark Chevrolet, Corp. & Bill Heard Chevrolet, Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, 'the dealerships') against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company ('Universal'). The dealerships were sued in two underlying class-action lawsuits by customers alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud due to being charged a 'Consumer Services Fee' for a worthless coupon book. Universal, the dealerships' insurer, declined to defend them under their Statute and Title E&O (STEO) coverage, which only covered claims arising from violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws. Universal then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment in Universal’s favor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the 'eight-corners rule' and concluding that the underlying petitions did not allege facts indicating violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws, and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-Lending LawsTruth-in-Leasing LawsDeclaratory JudgmentClass Action LawsuitsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer Services FeeAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. KP-0488
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2025

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0488

Section 3 of Senate Bill 763 directs school boards and charter governing bodies to vote on whether to authorize employee or volunteer chaplains. The Attorney General clarifies that the term “chaplain” refers to an official, substantive position within the educational institution, implying specific chaplain-related support, services, and programs. Therefore, resolutions that acknowledge a policy’s silence on chaplains for “any position” or allow chaplains for “any open position” are noncompliant. Compliance requires a vote specifically authorizing hiring for “a school chaplain position,” aligning with the legislation’s intent for a designated role.

School LawChaplaincySenate Bill 763Texas Education CodeStatutory InterpretationSchool BoardsCharter SchoolsEmployee ChaplainsVolunteer ChaplainsReligious Services
References
18
Case No. 362,516-A
Regular Panel Decision

Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District v. Edgewood Independent School District

This case addresses the constitutionality of Texas's public school finance system, specifically Senate Bill 351, following previous rulings in Edgewood I and Edgewood II. The Supreme Court of Texas held Senate Bill 351 invalid on two primary grounds: it levies a state ad valorem tax in violation of Article VIII, Section 1-e of the Texas Constitution, and it levies an ad valorem tax without voter approval in violation of Article VII, Section 3. The court found that the County Education Districts (CEDs) created by the bill, which levy, collect, and distribute property taxes at state-mandated rates without local discretion or voter consent, effectively impose an illegal state tax. While recognizing the Legislature's challenge in creating an efficient school system, the court emphasized that such efforts cannot override other constitutional provisions. The court's ruling on the invalidity of Senate Bill 351 was applied prospectively, deferring its effect until June 1, 1993, to allow the Legislature time to enact a new constitutional school finance plan without disrupting current school operations.

School Finance ReformTexas ConstitutionAd Valorem TaxVoter ApprovalCounty Education DistrictsConstitutional LawPublic Education FundingState Tax ProhibitionEfficiency ClauseLegislative Discretion
References
126
Case No. SRO 0132302 SRO 0137260 SRO 0137261
Regular
Apr 25, 2008

ROMAN BELTRAN vs. PIEDMONT LUMBER & MILL COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the application of Labor Code section 4658(d) to an injury occurring on May 10, 2004, after Senate Bill 899's enactment. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that because the employer did not offer a return-to-work plan for at least 12 months, the permanent disability indemnity payable from 60 days after the P&S date must be increased by 15%. This ruling clarifies that SB 899's provisions apply prospectively from its enactment date to injuries not specifically excluded by the legislation.

Labor Code section 4658(d)SB 899permanent disability awardpermanent and stationary datereturn to workjob offerweekly conversion schedulemedical-legal reporttreating physician's reporttemporary disability indemnity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. 13-09-00128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Bill Head D/B/A Bill Head Enterprises and Titeflex Corporation

The case involves an appeal by Petroleum Solutions, Inc. (PSI) against Bill Head d/b/a Bill Head Enterprises (Head) and Titeflex, Inc., regarding a jury verdict stemming from a significant diesel fuel leak at Head's truck stop. PSI challenged trial court sanctions for spoliation of evidence, and findings related to Head's claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, as well as Titeflex's indemnification claims. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Head and Titeflex, finding sufficient evidence for PSI's breach of duties and product liability. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment interest.

Diesel leakUnderground storage tankEnvironmental regulationsSpoliation of evidenceFiduciary dutyBreach of contractFraudIndemnificationProduct liabilityAttorney's fees
References
153
Case No. 11-08-00110-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Great Western Drilling, Limited v. Bill Alexander

Great Western Drilling, Limited, appealed a take-nothing verdict in its suit against attorney Bill Alexander. Great Western claimed Alexander conspired with his client, Marilyn Paschal, to convert insurance proceeds that Great Western asserted were its equitable property, purchased with embezzled funds. The case stemmed from an earlier suit where Great Western sued Paschal for embezzlement and sought a constructive trust on the proceeds. The trial court severed claims against Alexander. At trial, the jury found that Alexander did not have notice that Great Western owned the insurance proceeds, leading to a verdict in Alexander's favor. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the jury's lack of notice finding was not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and any error regarding expert testimony was not reversible. Alexander's cross-appeal for sanctions was also denied.

ConversionInsurance ProceedsAttorney LiabilityFraudEmbezzlementNoticeJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceExpert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
34
Case No. 04-07-00859-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2009

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Bill Hibdon

This case concerns an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim where Pacific Employers Insurance Company (Pacific) contested the compensability of an injury claimed by Bill Hibdon. The core issue was whether Pacific had waived its right to contest compensability by allegedly failing to timely send notice of refusal to pay benefits to Hibdon, as required by the version of Texas Labor Code § 409.021(a) in effect at the time. The trial court affirmed an appeals panel decision, concluding Pacific had waived its right due to Hibdon's non-receipt of timely notice. However, citing Sw. Bell Tel. v. Mitchell, the appellate court determined that failure to send or receive notice within the statutory seven-day period does not constitute a waiver of the insurer's right to contest compensability. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Pacific, holding it did not waive its right.

Workers' CompensationWaiverInsurance CarrierNotice of RefusalCompensabilityTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentReversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landmark Chevrolet Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (the dealerships) against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Universal). The dealerships sought to overturn a judgment declaring that Universal had no duty to defend them in two underlying class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits, brought by customers, alleged violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud related to a 'Consumer Services Fee.' Universal denied coverage under the Statute and Title E&O (STEO) policy, arguing that the underlying petitions did not allege truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing violations as required by the policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in Universal's favor, upholding the application of the 'eight-corners' rule and declining to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-LendingTruth-in-LeasingDeceptive Trade Practices ActSummary JudgmentExtrinsic EvidenceAutomobile SalesClass Action
References
8
Case No. 14-22-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2023

Bill Wyly Development, Inc. and William Wyly v. Eron Smith and Hanna Smith

This case involves an appeal by Bill Wyly Development, Inc. and William Wyly against Eron and Hanna Smith. The Smiths had initially sued Wyly for trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress after declining to hire Wyly Development to build their home, leading to verbal threats and property damage. The trial court awarded the Smiths $32,500 in damages. On appeal, the court reversed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, concluding that Wyly's conduct was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous. However, the court affirmed the jury's award of $11,500 for trespass damages, finding the evidence factually sufficient. The motion for rehearing was denied.

Emotional DistressTrespass LawAppellate ProcedureDirected VerdictFactual SufficiencyContract DisputeProperty DamageVerbal ThreatsJury VerdictRehearing Denied
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 928 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