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

Rapid Settlements Ltd. v. SSC Settlements, LLC

This case involves an appeal and mandamus proceeding filed by Rapid Settlements, Ltd. and Rapid Management Corporation (Rapid) against SSC Settlements, L.L.C. and Stone Street Capital, Inc. (SSC). Rapid challenged a final summary judgment related to the transfer of structured settlement payments from William Prante. Rapid sought to stay litigation pending arbitration, arguing the dispute with SSC fell under an arbitration clause in their agreement with Prante, which also included a right of first refusal and a security interest. The appellate court denied the mandamus petition, vacated the trial court's denial of Rapid's motion to stay, and reversed parts of the summary judgment concerning Rapid's security interest and right of first refusal. The court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to SSC and its injunction preventing Rapid from compelling SSC to arbitrate.

Arbitration AgreementMandamus ProceedingSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentStructured SettlementRight of First RefusalSecurity InterestEquitable EstoppelDirect Benefits EstoppelContract Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Symetra Life Insurance v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd.

This case involves the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) seeking a permanent injunction against Rapid Settlements, Ltd., a factoring company. NASP alleged that Rapid Settlements improperly uses arbitration and enforces rights of first refusal and security interests in structured settlement payment rights without state-court approval, thereby circumventing state Structured Settlement Protection Acts (SSPAs). The court found that Rapid Settlements' practices illegally circumvent the SSPAs, cloud title to annuitants' payment rights, raise transaction costs for NASP members, and place them at a competitive disadvantage. The court rejected Rapid Settlements' defenses, including preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act and an 'unclean hands' argument against NASP. The court granted NASP's application, permanently enjoining Rapid Settlements from using arbitration or enforcing unapproved rights of first refusal and security interests to effectuate transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

Structured SettlementsFactoring CompaniesAnnuity PaymentsArbitrationInjunctionState LawFederal LawStructured Settlement Protection ActsRights of First RefusalSecurity Interests
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. 14-07-00880-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2009

Symetra National Life Insurance Company and Symetra Life Insurance Company v. Rapid Settlements, LTD

Symetra National Life Insurance Co. and Symetra Life Insurance Co. appealed a trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award that directed them to make structured settlement payments to Rapid Settlements, Ltd., instead of the original payee, Paul Patterson. Symetra argued that the transfer lacked the required court approval under the Texas Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA) and violated public policy, while Rapid Settlements asserted it was not a 'transfer' under SSPA, federal law preempted SSPA, and Symetra lacked standing. The court rejected Rapid's arguments, emphasizing that the SSPA mandates court preapproval for structured settlement payment transfers to protect payees and their dependents. Consequently, the court held that the arbitration award violated Texas public policy by effectuating an unapproved transfer. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the arbitration award was vacated.

Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)PreemptionStandingGarnishmentTransfer of PaymentsAnnuity IssuerTexas Law
References
20
Case No. 01-15-00147-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2015

Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC

This case involves an appeal by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Insurance & Annuity Company (Appellants) against Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC and Sara Swain (Appellees) regarding a trial court's approval of a structured settlement payment rights transfer. Sara Swain, the payee, sought to transfer partial monthly payments to Peachtree, leading to a "Servicing Arrangement" approved by the trial court. This arrangement allowed Peachtree to receive the full monthly payments, retain its assigned portion, and remit the remainder to Swain, without requiring MetLife to directly divide payments. MetLife challenged this, asserting the arrangement improperly modified contracts, contravened the Texas Transfer Statute, and imposed an involuntary business relationship. The Appellee's brief argues for the affirmation of the trial court's decision, emphasizing the legality of the servicing arrangement under Texas's principles of contract assignability and principal-agency law, and affirming the transfer as being in Swain's best interest.

Structured SettlementPayment Rights TransferServicing ArrangementContract AssignabilityPrincipal-Agency LawBest Interest DeterminationAppellate ReviewTexas Transfer StatuteLegal PrecedentAnnuity Issuer Obligations
References
68
Case No. 03-06-00257-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2009

Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas v. GameTech International, Inc. Anthony J. Sadberry, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Lottery Commission And Texas Lottery Commission

Greg Abbott, as Attorney General of Texas, appealed a summary judgment that deemed settlement letters between GameTech International, Inc., and the Texas Lottery Commission exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). The Attorney General contended that no other law rendered these communications confidential. The appellate court examined whether the confidentiality provisions of the Governmental Dispute Resolution Act and the civil practice and remedies code applied to informal settlement negotiations. It concluded that these statutes only cover communications made within statutorily defined alternative dispute resolution procedures, which the exchanged settlement offers were not. Furthermore, the court found no common-law privilege protecting settlement negotiations or a corporate right to privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that the settlement letters are not exempt from PIA disclosure requirements.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestSettlement NegotiationsConfidentiality ExceptionStatutory ConstructionGovernmental Dispute ResolutionAlternative Dispute ResolutionCorporate Right to PrivacySummary Judgment AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garibaldi v. ANIXTER, INC.

Plaintiff Jason Garibaldi sued his former employer, Anixter, Inc., for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and ADA, along with a negligence claim. The negligence claim was dismissed, and the parties subsequently reached an oral settlement agreement for $70,000. Garibaldi later refused to sign the formal settlement agreement, arguing that the payment should be tax-free, a condition he claimed was part of earlier, unfulfilled negotiations. Anixter moved to compel enforcement, asserting that no tax-free provision was discussed or agreed upon during the binding settlement negotiations. The court granted Anixter's motion, finding no evidence of a tax-free term in the final oral agreement and ordered the parties to execute the settlement, while striking a non-agreed re-employment clause.

Settlement AgreementOral ContractContract EnforcementTax ImplicationsEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VIINegligence ClaimMotion to Compel
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Henry Street Settlement

Lydia Garcia, an Hispanic female, was terminated from her employment at Henry Street Settlement after nearly 27 years. She filed a complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Henry Street argued that her position was eliminated due to a reduction in force caused by a loss of funding. Garcia also claimed a hostile work environment due to a Spanish-speaking policy and discriminatory denial of a new position. The court granted Henry Street's motion for summary judgment, finding that Garcia failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that Henry Street provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActReduction in ForcePretext for DiscriminationPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting Framework
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davison v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement order in a workers' compensation matter. The court initially erred by concluding that New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), the compensation carrier, had sufficient notice of an initial settlement conference in 1984 and had waived its right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement. It was undisputed that NHIC was not served with papers prior to the initial conference, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law section 29 (5). The court also addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for a nunc pro tunc compromise order, made 19 months after the initial settlement, ruling it timely as the delay was not due to plaintiff's neglect or fault and NHIC was not prejudiced. However, due to doubts about whether NHIC was fully heard and if adequate consideration was given to its concerns regarding the settlement's fairness (specifically regarding medical expenses, loss of consortium offset, and allocations to children not parties), the order was reversed. The matter was remitted for the development of a record and specific findings on the reasonableness of the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementNotice RequirementsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise OrderCarrier LiabilityReasonableness of SettlementLoss of ConsortiumMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,475 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