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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wooley v. Gould, Inc.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Chancellor's denial of an appellant's motion to set aside a lump-sum workers' compensation settlement. The appellant filed the motion exactly one year after the settlement's approval, alleging fraud or mistake regarding his disability. The Court found the motion untimely, stating that while within the one-year maximum, the appellant failed to act within a "reasonable time." Additionally, the appellant did not offer to return the benefits received, a long-standing requirement for rescinding workers' compensation settlements in the state. The Court rejected claims of insufficient advice regarding employment prospects or the disability rating, emphasizing the finality of lump-sum settlements.

Workers' Compensation SettlementRule 60.02 MotionTimeliness of MotionTender of BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryLaminectomyMedical ReportChancery CourtSupreme Court of Tennessee
References
6
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grogg v. General Motors Corp.

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by individual employees and unions against General Motors, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 concerning pregnancy and maternity leave policies. A settlement stipulation was submitted, but it excluded a subclass of female employees who were forced to take involuntary maternity leave before December 20, 1971. District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy denied approval of the settlement, deeming it unfair, inadequate, and unreasonable. The court found that the stipulation improperly extinguished valid claims of this excluded subgroup without offering adequate consideration or a merits hearing, despite their high likelihood of prevailing.

Class ActionTitle VIIEmployment LawPregnancy DiscriminationMaternity Leave PoliciesSettlement ApprovalJudicial DiscretionCivil Rights Act of 1964Due Process RightsBackpay Awards
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Storebrand Ins. Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau

Plaintiff Storebrand Insurance Co., as subrogee of Texas Drydock, Inc. (TDI), sought indemnification from Defendant Wausau for $200,000 paid to settle a prior Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) claim. TDI, a ship repair company, was an alternate employer under Stafftek, Inc.'s workers' compensation policy serviced by Wausau. Storebrand, TDI's general liability insurer, paid $200,000 to complete a settlement after Wausau offered only $300,000 for an injured employee's claim. Storebrand then alleged Wausau breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and the Texas Insurance Code by not increasing its settlement offer. The Court ruled that Wausau, as a servicing company, could not be held liable for breach of good faith and fair dealing, and found Wausau had a reasonable basis for its $300,000 settlement offer, thus dismissing Storebrand's DTPA and Texas Insurance Code claims with prejudice. Consequently, the Court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment and denied Storebrand's, dismissing all claims.

IndemnificationSummary JudgmentBreach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Texas Insurance CodeLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA)SubrogationWorkers' Compensation FacilityServicing Company LiabilityExhaustion of Administrative Remedies
References
11
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 3,083 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