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. E2002-01092-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2003

State ex rel. Anne Pope v. United States Fire

This case involves an appeal by the State of Tennessee, ex rel. Anne B. Pope, and intervening petitioners, against several insurance companies concerning the liability for workers' compensation benefits. The dispute arose after North American Royalties, Inc., a self-insured entity, sought bankruptcy protection, prompting questions about the extent of liability of the surety bonds issued by the defendant insurance companies. Specifically, the case addresses whether the insurance companies are liable for the aggregate amount of the bonds or only the amount stated in the last rider. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the insurance companies, a decision which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court found the reasoning in Fourth & First Bank & Trust Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland persuasive, supporting the view that continuous bond obligations are subject to annual premium adjustments rather than creating new, aggregate liabilities with each renewal or rider.

Worker's CompensationInsurance BondSelf-InsuranceAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationContract LawSurety IndustryLiabilityBankruptcyEmployer-Employee Relations
References
10
Case No. 03-99-00719-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Southwestern Life Insurance Company v. Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas John Cornyn, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Southwestern Life Insurance Company appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of the State regarding insurance premium taxes. Southwestern sought to apply a 1989 tax credit, exceeding its premium tax liability for that year, against its 1990 premium tax liability, arguing the credit could be carried forward. The State contended the credit was only valid for the year the fees were paid. The Court of Appeals, focusing on statutory construction of Article 4.11 of the Texas Insurance Code, found no explicit carry-forward provision. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the credit for examination and valuation fees may only be offset against premium tax liability for the year in which the fees are paid, and unused credit cannot be carried forward or backward.

Tax CreditInsurance Premium TaxStatutory InterpretationCarry-Forward ProvisionAdministrative LawLegislative IntentTexas Insurance CodeSummary JudgmentExamination FeesValuation Fees
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

Hunt v. State

The claimant, arrested for grand larceny in 1998, was unable to post bail and was sexually assaulted by another inmate while in the Manhattan Detention Center. Despite a court directive for protective custody on September 18, 1998, state court officers failed to properly record this order on the securing order. Consequently, the claimant was returned to general population and assaulted again on September 21. The Court of Claims initially dismissed the claimant's action for damages against the State. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the court officers' failure to record the protective custody order was a breach of a ministerial duty, thereby establishing state liability. The case has been remanded for a trial to determine the damages for the September 21 assault.

Inmate AssaultProtective CustodyMinisterial NegligenceState LiabilityCourt Officer DutySecuring OrderDamages RemandAppellate ReversalCorrectional Facility NegligencePrisoner Safety
References
7
Case No. M2020-00964-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Guidesoft, Inc. D/B/A Knowledge Services v. State Protest Committee, State of Tennessee

Knowledge Services challenged the award of a statewide contract to Covendis, protesting the Central Procurement Office's (CPO) dismissal of its bid due to an insufficient protest bond. The CPO, and subsequently the State Protest Committee, determined that Knowledge Services failed to submit the correct bond amount, calculated as 5% of the State's estimated maximum liability of $190,000,000 under Tenn. Code Ann. § 12-3-514(d)(2). The Chancery Court for Davidson County upheld this decision, emphasizing the statute's intent to protect the State's exposure and limiting judicial review to the record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, concluding that the CPO correctly applied the protest bond statute and that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional evidence.

Bid protestGovernment contractsState procurementProtest bondStatutory interpretationAdministrative lawCommon law writ of certiorariJudicial reviewAbuse of discretionLegislative intent
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Conn

This appeal concerns State Farm's challenge to a trial court's award of uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits to Appellees under an automobile liability insurance policy. Sherrie Ann Conn, a passenger, was killed in an accident caused by Stephanie Ann Laux, whose vehicle was insured by State Farm. Appellees received liability benefits from State Farm and UM/UIM benefits from Conn's separate Allstate policy. Appellees then sought additional UM/UIM benefits from the Laux policy, which State Farm denied based on an exclusion for vehicles owned by or regularly available to the insured. The appellate court distinguished this case from prior rulings that broadly interpreted the UM/UIM statute's purpose to protect against financially irresponsible motorists. Instead, it aligned with cases prohibiting claimants from recovering both liability and UM/UIM benefits under a single policy, especially when the at-fault driver was not financially irresponsible. The court concluded that allowing such recovery would improperly transform UM/UIM coverage into general liability insurance, contrary to the statutory intent to protect against the negligence of *others*. Consequently, the trial court's judgment awarding UIM benefits was reversed.

Uninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoverageAutomobile Liability PolicyInsurance Policy ExclusionsUM/UIM BenefitsStatutory ConstructionPublic Policy in InsuranceNegligence of OthersFinancial Responsibility LawTexas Appellate Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iacampo v. State

This case concerns an appeal from a Court of Claims judgment finding the State of New York 70% responsible for injuries sustained by Luca Iacampo while employed by Santaro Industries, Inc. Iacampo and his employer were each found 15% responsible. The State appealed, challenging findings of common-law negligence, Labor Law violations, denial of qualified immunity, and the allocation of liability. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, confirming that the State had notice of unsafe work practices and the authority to control them, thus failing to provide a safe workplace. The court also upheld the apportionment of liability, finding the prior ruling reasonable and rejecting the State's contentions regarding Iacampo's sole negligence and qualified immunity.

NegligenceLabor LawWorkplace SafetyApportionment of LiabilityQualified ImmunityCommon-Law NegligenceCourt of ClaimsAppellate ReviewHighway ProjectIndustrial Code
References
11
Case No. 03-01-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2001

Rick Perry, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas Henry Cuellar, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas v. Alicia Del Rio, Phyllis Dunham and Jeremy Wright

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the District Court of Travis County. Appellants, including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary of State of Texas, argued that they were not 'governmental units' for the purpose of interlocutory appeal and that the appellees' redistricting claims were not ripe. The Third District Court of Appeals at Austin affirmed the district court's order, holding that state officials acting in their official capacities are indeed 'governmental units' under the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The court also found that the consolidated redistricting lawsuit was ripe for judicial consideration, particularly after the state legislature adjourned without enacting a new congressional redistricting plan. Lastly, the court clarified that a prior federal court's retained jurisdiction over 1990 census-based redistricting did not preclude state court jurisdiction over challenges based on the 2000 census.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental UnitRipeness DoctrineOfficial CapacityRedistrictingCongressional DistrictsJurisdictionTexas ConstitutionCivil Practice & Remedies Code
References
27
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04119 [141 AD3d 43]
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2016

Costa v. State of New York

Claimant Modesto Costa, a construction worker, sustained injuries at Pier 40 due to a collapsing metal beam. Pier 40 is owned by the State of New York but managed by the Hudson River Park Trust. After an initial claim against New York City was dismissed, Costa sought to file a late notice of claim against the State of New York. The Court of Claims denied this motion, asserting the State was not a proper party due to the legislative transfer of legal obligations to the Trust under the Hudson River Park Act. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, holding that despite retaining record title, the State was not an "owner" for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) liability purposes. The court reasoned that the Hudson River Park Act, particularly the clause stating the Trust "shall succeed to all...other legal obligations," demonstrated legislative intent to exempt the State from such liability. This intent was further supported by a 2013 amendment requiring the State to indemnify the Trust, indicating that the original Act intended the Trust to bear sole legal responsibility for injuries in the Park. Therefore, the State was not a proper party to the action.

Labor Law liabilityOwner liabilityAbsolute liabilityPublic benefit corporationHudson River Park ActStatutory interpretationLate notice of claimProperty ownershipLessees liabilityGovernmental immunity
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Appellant Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S. appealed a district court's summary judgment dismissing her suit against State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor alleged that State Farm violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without providing Personal Injury Protection (PIP) or Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. State Farm contended that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) has authority to regulate such auto insurance under the multi-peril subchapter, making PIP and UM/UIM non-mandatory for this specific policy type. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of State Farm, concluding that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinguishable from general "auto liability insurance" under the relevant subchapter, and TDI exercised its authority to regulate it differently.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentMulti-peril InsuranceHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) CoverageTexas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2015

State v. Emeritus Corporation

The State of Texas, through the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), sued Emeritus Corporation, an assisted living facility operator, for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices – Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) and the Assisted Living Facility Licensing Act (ALFLA). This action stemmed from an incident where a resident with dementia eloped from the facility and was later found deceased. The State sought statutory civil penalties and injunctive relief. Emeritus moved for dismissal, asserting the case constituted a health care liability claim under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA), which would require an expert report that the State had not filed. The trial court granted Emeritus's motion to dismiss, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the State, acting in its sovereign capacity and seeking civil penalties rather than compensatory damages, is not a 'claimant' subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement.

Assisted Living FacilityElder Care NeglectDeceptive Trade PracticesCivil PenaltiesInjunctive ReliefTexas Medical Liability ActExpert Report RequirementSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 16,092 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