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. 06-03-00135-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2004

Pat Forth, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Allstate Indemnity Company

Pat Forth sued Allstate Indemnity Company after her daughter's automobile accident, alleging Allstate arbitrarily paid only a portion of medical expenses using a computerized database (MBRS) and an eighty-fifth percentile standard, rather than 'reasonable' expenses. Forth initially sought both retrospective relief for past claims and prospective relief to enjoin future use of MBRS, but later removed requests for monetary damages. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. On appeal, the court held that Forth lacked standing for prospective relief because she was no longer an Allstate insured. However, the appellate court found Forth had standing for retrospective relief regarding her past claims, asserting that an injury existed due to Allstate's alleged failure to pay reasonable expenses as per the policy. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal was vacated regarding past claims and remanded for further proceedings.

StandingDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefInsurance LawPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Medical ExpensesClass ActionAppellate ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionMootness
References
13
Case No. 03-01-00396-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2002

National Western Life Insurance Company v. Ella Mae Rowe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

This case involves an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action against National Western Life Insurance Company. The class action was brought by Ella Mae Rowe, alleging that National wrongfully continued to collect premiums for child riders on life insurance policies after coverage for those children had terminated. Rowe's claims included breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of consumer protection and insurance codes. National argued against class certification, raising issues with the trial plan, commonality, choice of law, expert testimony, and cost allocation for class member identification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding no abuse of discretion in certifying the class, applying Texas law, and allowing the expert testimony and cost allocation.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealInsurance PolicyChild RiderPremium CollectionContract BreachFraudNegligent MisrepresentationUnjust EnrichmentDeceptive Trade Practices
References
43
Case No. 03-00-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2000

Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas v. Marcie Caldwell Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

Marcie Caldwell filed a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Texas Government Code section 51.702(b), which mandates a $15 court cost on criminal convictions to supplement judges' salaries in participating statutory county courts. Caldwell alleged this varying cost violated due course of law and equal rights provisions of the Texas Constitution. The Comptroller of Public Accounts, Carole Keeton Rylander, filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied the Comptroller's plea. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Caldwell's suit was not barred by sovereign immunity as it challenged a state official's actions under an allegedly unconstitutional law, and that exclusive remedies under the Tax Code or Code of Criminal Procedure were inapplicable. The court also found a justiciable controversy existed, as the Comptroller enforces the challenged statute.

Sovereign ImmunityJurisdictionConstitutional LawGovernment CodeCourt CostsDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefClass ActionDue Course of LawEqual Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halkias v. General Dynamics Corp.

The court considered the defendant, General Dynamics Corporation's, motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs, Dawn Dee Bryant, Barry Jackson, and others similarly situated. Plaintiffs sought recovery under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, alleging inadequate notice for a mass layoff in January and February 1991. The defendant argued the layoff was caused by business circumstances (cancellation of the A-12 program) that were not reasonably foreseeable, thus exempting them from the 60-day notice under 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(2)(A). The court found no genuine issue of material fact, concluding that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion was granted, and plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice, as the defendant provided as much notice as practicable under the circumstances.

WARN Actmass layoffsummary judgmentunforeseeable business circumstancesnotice requirementA-12 program cancellationemployee rightsFifth Circuitfederal courtclass action
References
19
Case No. 06-17-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2018

Jessica Growden, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Good Shepherd Health System, the Good Shepherd Hospital, Inc., and Good Shepherd Medical Center

Jessica Growden sued Good Shepherd Medical Center as a class action after being charged an allegedly unreasonable amount for her daughter's emergency room visit. Growden, uninsured, sought a declaratory judgment that the hospital's contract only allowed billing for the reasonable value of services. Good Shepherd waived Growden's bill before class certification and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals applied the "picking-off exception" to the mootness doctrine, finding that Good Shepherd's waiver was a litigation strategy. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Growden's class-action claims and her individual claim for attorney fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act, remanding for further proceedings, while affirming the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

Class ActionMootness DoctrinePicking-off ExceptionDeclaratory Judgment ActAttorney FeesSubject-Matter JurisdictionMedical Billing DisputeHospital Emergency ServicesContractual LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
41
Case No. 13-02-415-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Daimlerchrysler Corporation (f/K/A Chrysler Corporation), Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler v. Bill L. Inman, David Castro and John Wilkins, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

This case involves an interlocutory appeal filed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation, challenging a trial court's certification of two nationwide classes. The plaintiffs are owners of DaimlerChrysler automobiles equipped with defective Gen-3 seatbelt buckles, alleging design defects leading to purely economic losses, but no physical injury or property damage. DaimlerChrysler contended the plaintiffs lacked standing under common-law torts, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) warranties. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the plaintiffs had standing, concluding they suffered a distinct, actual injury from insufficient product value, and that monetary damages would provide redress. However, the court reversed and remanded the class certification due to the trial court's failure to perform a proper choice-of-law analysis for nationwide claims.

Defective ProductsClass ActionStanding to SueEconomic LossSeatbelt DefectsTexas LawDTPAUCCBreach of WarrantyNegligence
References
96
Case No. 10-0245
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2011

Patrick O. Ojo, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Farmers Group, Inc., Fire Underwriters Association, Fire Insurance Exchange, Farmers Underwriters Association, and Farmers Insurance Exchange

Justice Willett's concurring opinion in Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc. agrees with the majority's outcome that the Insurance Code, as written, does not support a cause of action for disparate impact discrimination related to credit scoring. However, he sharply criticizes the majority's methodology, particularly its reliance on extratextual aids like legislative history and failed bills, arguing such practices are "inappropriate" when a statute is unambiguous. Willett emphasizes the principle of textualism, asserting that "where text is clear, text is determinative," and warns against the manipulation of legislative history. He also disputes Chief Justice Jefferson's proposed distinction between "contextualizing" and "construing" legislative materials, viewing it as a tenuous attempt to justify the use of unreliable evidence. Ultimately, Justice Willett advocates for consistent, predictable statutory interpretation rooted solely in plain language to ensure clarity and stability in the law.

Statutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryTextualismDisparate ImpactInsurance CodeTexas Supreme CourtJudicial PrecedentConcurring OpinionCredit ScoringAmbiguity
References
45
Case No. 03-03-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., D/B/A Jeanne N. Taylor D.D.S., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor had sued State Farm, alleging that the insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing her business a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinct from "auto liability insurance" as defined in Article 5, Subchapter A of the Texas Insurance Code. The court further concluded that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) had the authority under Article 5.02 to regulate such policies under other rating laws, thus making PIP and UM/UIM coverage not mandatory for Taylor's specific policy.

Insurance LawMulti-peril PolicyHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
21
Case No. 09-01-511 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2002

American National Insurance Company, and American National Property and Casualty Company v. Frank E. Cannon, II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated

This is an interlocutory appeal from a class certification order. American National Insurance Company (ANICO) and American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) appealed the certification of a class action brought by former agents (Frank E. Cannon II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover). The agents alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Insurance Code, seeking declaratory judgments regarding non-compete provisions and repayment of advance agreements. The appellate court found that individual issues, such as the reasonableness of non-compete restrictions and reliance on oral representations for advance payments, predominated over common issues. Consequently, the court determined that the requirements for class certification under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)(4), (b)(2), and (b)(1)(A) were not satisfied. The class certification order was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealContract DisputeNon-compete ClauseAgent AgreementsInsurance AgentsDeclaratory JudgmentStandingRipenessPredominance
References
20
Case No. NO. 13-0515
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

John Klumb, Veronica McClelland, Vivian Montejano, John Gonzalez, Anita Robles, and Charmaine Pilgrim, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and the City of Houston v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Barbara Chelette, David L. Long, Lenard Polk, Roy Sanchez, and Lonnie Vara

This case concerns a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) and whether its board members violated the enabling statute by requiring petitioners' continued participation in the City of Houston's defined-benefit pension plan. The City attempted to remove a division of employees from the pension system by forming quasi-governmental entities. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained under the City's control and payroll, thus falling under the "employee" definition for HMEPS membership. Petitioners, including individual employees and the City of Houston, asserted ultra vires and constitutional claims, arguing the board unlawfully redefined "employee" and denied vested rights. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority in construing the term "employee" and the petitioners' constitutional claims were facially invalid as they lacked vested property rights in pension benefits or contributions.

Pension SystemEmployee DefinitionUltra ViresJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityTexas ConstitutionEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal Employees
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 974 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