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. 03-97-00567-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 1998

Memorial Medical Center of East Texas v. James A. Howard, Special Deputy Receiver of Texas Employers' Insurance Association and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association

Memorial Medical Center of East Texas appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of James A. Howard, Special Deputy Receiver of Texas Employers' Insurance Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association. Memorial sought a declaration that the appellees were obligated to reimburse defense costs incurred in a separate suit brought by its employees. The trial court granted the appellees' motions for summary judgment without specifying the grounds. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that both the Receiver and the Association were statutorily precluded from defending Memorial or reimbursing its defense costs under relevant provisions of the Texas Insurance Code.

Summary judgmentInsurance CodeDuty to defendReimbursementImpaired insurerReceivershipGuaranty AssociationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationWorkers' compensation insurance
References
11
Case No. 03-99-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2000

Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Jack M. Webb, as Special Deputy Receiver of Employers Casualty Co. Jack M. Webb, as Special Deputy Receiver of Employers National Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment concerning the claims priority scheme within the Texas Insurance Code's liquidation statute. The appellant, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), challenged the classification of its claims for defense costs incurred in defending liability and workers' compensation claims under policies of insolvent insurers. TPCIGA argued these costs should receive Class 1 priority as claims-handling expenses, while appellees contended they were Class 2 payments of policyholder claims. The court concluded that, prior to a 1995 amendment to the statute, such defense costs were properly classified as Class 2 claims. Therefore, the district court's judgment classifying them as Class 2 was affirmed.

Insurance LawClaims PriorityLiquidation StatuteTexas Insurance CodeGuaranty ActPolicyholder ClaimsDefense CostsStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentReceivership
References
22
Case No. 03-11-00688-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2012

Approach Operating, LLC v. Resolution Oversight Corporation, as Special Deputy Receiver of Financial Insurance Company of America And the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment regarding a workers' compensation carrier's subrogation rights. Appellant Approach Operating, LLC, a general contractor, argued that the carrier had waived its subrogation rights through a Master Service Agreement (MSA) with subcontractor Lilly Construction, Inc. An employee of Lilly, Rodolfo Martinez, was injured and received workers' compensation benefits from Financial Insurance Company of America (FICA) and later The Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA). The district court found no waiver of subrogation and granted summary judgment for FICA and TPCIGA. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the lower court's judgment, emphasizing that explicit contractual language is required for a waiver of subrogation, which was absent in the MSA.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverMaster Service AgreementContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentTexas Court of AppealsInsurance LawOil and Gas IndustryExplicitness RuleThird-Party Claim
References
24
Case No. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between North Country Community College Ass'n & North Country Community College

Petitioner Michael Leahy, a tenured accounting professor, was terminated by North Country Community College for misconduct involving a heated verbal exchange with his supervisor. Leahy and his union, the North Country Community College Association of Professionals, filed a grievance that proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator found serious misconduct but modified the penalty to a 15-month suspension without pay, along with anger management counseling, rather than termination. Petitioners sought to confirm the arbitration award, while respondents cross-moved to vacate it. The Supreme Court confirmed the award, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in modifying the penalty and that the award was not irrational or violative of strong public policy.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationEmployee TerminationWorkplace MisconductCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrator AuthorityPublic Policy ChallengePenalty ModificationAnger ManagementJudicial Review of ArbitrationDisciplinary Action
References
8
Case No. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. 03-15-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2015

California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.

The appellants, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA), and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), collectively "Guaranty Associations," are appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee, Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ("Hill Bros."). The suit was filed on March 31, 2009, alleging Hill Bros. failed to reimburse the Guaranty Associations for payments of workers' compensation benefits and claim handling expenses within the deductible limits of a policy issued by the insolvent Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Hill Bros. based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the cause of action accrued on April 1, 2002. The Guaranty Associations argue that the accrual date is incorrect, as their statutory obligations had not been triggered, payments had not been made, and demand for reimbursement had not occurred by that date. They also contend that their compliance with Pennsylvania law (the "Pennsylvania Act") in seeking reimbursement through Legion in Liquidation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for any delay, making reasonableness a fact question. Furthermore, they assert the policy was a continuing contract, and the statute of limitations should not have accrued until full performance on April 28, 2009. Alternatively, they argue that claims for deductible payments made within four years of filing suit (March 31, 2005) are not barred.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty AssociationStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeductible ReimbursementInsolvencyInsurance PolicyContinuing ContractPennsylvania ActTravis County
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. 03-98-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 1999

Concho Residential Service, Inc. v. MHMR Services for the Concho Valley A/K/A Concho Valley Center for Human Advancement, in Its Capacity as an Unincorporated Association, Its Capacity as a Mental Retardation Authority, and as a Purported Community MHMR Center

Concho Residential Services, Inc. (CRS) sued MHMR Services for the Concho Valley and 22 others for damages and injunctive relief, alleging statutory and common-law causes of action. The trial court rendered summary judgment, which CRS appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in part, finding that community centers are governmental entities entitled to sovereign immunity, thus dismissing antitrust, RICO, DTPA, and common-law tort claims. It also dismissed CRS's claim for injunctive relief due to lack of standing and claims under the Persons with Mental Retardation Act. The summary judgment for Hale County was also affirmed.

Antitrust ImmunityState Action ExemptionSovereign ImmunityMental Health ServicesMental Retardation ServicesCommunity CentersGovernmental EntitiesSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStanding
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2009

Vincente v. Silverstein Properties, Inc.

This case concerns a personal injury action where the plaintiff was determined to be a special employee of the defendants. This finding allowed the defendants to invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the evidence demonstrated the defendants, as the owner and property manager of the work site, supervised and controlled the plaintiff's work. Furthermore, the plaintiff's argument disputing the special employment relationship with the "River Place" defendants was rejected. This rejection was based on a property management agreement confirming that the supervisory staff of the property manager were also employees of the owner.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmploymentSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAppellate AffirmationEmployment LawLabor LawProperty ManagementControl Test
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,821 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