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. 14-08-00438-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2008

in Re Shippers Stevedoring Company

Shippers Stevedoring Company filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Rory R. Olsen of Harris County Probate Court Number Three to vacate an order denying Shippers' plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying case involved wrongful death and survival claims brought by the heirs and estate of Chavon Lewis, who was fatally injured by a forklift while working for Shippers. Shippers argued the probate court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to the exclusivity of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) and the Department of Labor's exclusive original jurisdiction. The court denied the mandamus, ruling that federal preemption is an affirmative defense and does not deprive the state trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over state-law claims, nor will it recharacterize state-law claims as federal claims.

MandamusSubject-matter JurisdictionFederal PreemptionWorkers' CompensationLHWCATexas Workers' Compensation ActWrongful DeathSurvival ClaimsProbate CourtAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. 01-00-00586-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company

This case involves indemnity and insurance claims arising from oilfield litigation. Appellants, Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company, appealed a summary judgment granted to appellees, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company. The trial court had ruled that mutual indemnity provisions in an oil and gas drilling contract were void under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment, holding that the contract was enforceable up to the extent of mutual coverage and dollar limits, and that its indemnity provisions were conspicuous.

Oilfield LitigationIndemnityInsurance ClaimsTexas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationMutual Indemnity ObligationConspicuousnessAppellate ReviewWell Blowout
References
18
Case No. 3-94-122-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1995

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. State Board of Insurance, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Houston General Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, United States Fire Insurance Company

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (Facility) appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an order by the State Board of Insurance. The Board had ordered the Facility to indemnify several servicing companies for legal expenses incurred in litigation brought by Standard Financial Indemnity Company (SFIC). The Facility argued that Article 5.76-2, section 2.05(i) of the Texas Insurance Code, which states the Facility 'may not indemnify the servicing companies,' terminated the servicing companies' right to indemnification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the servicing companies had a vested contractual right to indemnification which arose when they entered into servicing company agreements, and that section 2.05(i) could not be applied retroactively to impair these vested rights. The court found that the law existing at the time the contracts were made, which included the Facility's bylaws allowing for indemnification, was incorporated into the agreements.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawContractual RightsVested RightsRetroactive Application of LawIndemnificationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance Code
References
32
Case No. 03-00-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

All American Life Insurance Company American General Life Insurance Company American National Insurance Company American National Life Insurance Company of Texas IDS Life Insurance Company And USLIFE Life Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas

Several insurance companies appealed a district court judgment affirming the Comptroller's assessment of premium and maintenance taxes on 'internal rollover' transactions, where policyholders transfer accumulation values within the same company for new policies. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reviewed the construction of Texas Insurance Code articles 4.11 and 4.17 de novo. The court determined that 'internal rollovers' do not involve funds being 'received' or 'collected' by the insurance companies, as the funds remain within the company. Therefore, these transactions are not subject to the premium and maintenance taxes. The judgment of the district court was reversed in part, and the case was remanded for a determination of the refund amounts owed to the companies.

Insurance LawTax LawPremium TaxInternal RolloversStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of AppealsInsurance CompaniesComptrollerGross PremiumsTax Refund
References
9
Case No. 04-25-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company v. Javier A. Libson, Nosbil, Inc., Jose Luis Ramirez, Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company

Appellants Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company appealed a no-evidence summary judgment. Cantu's claims of negligence per se, negligent hiring, training, retention, and negligent entrustment were affirmed. However, the summary judgment for Cantu's ordinary negligence claims was reversed and remanded. Additionally, the judgment favoring the insurance defendants (Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company) was also reversed, as their motion for summary judgment was not properly heard. The case involved a collision between Cantu and Jose Luis Ramirez, an employee of Nosbil, Inc., in foggy conditions, leading to Cantu suing for negligence and insurance claims.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseDuty of CareBreach of DutyCausationInsurance ClaimsVicarious Liability
References
36
Case No. 03-03-00704-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2005

Texas Mutual Insurance Company// Eckerd Corporation H.E. Butt Grocery Company Third-Party Solutions, Inc. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Apollo Enterprises, Inc. And Walgreen Company v. Eckerd Corporation H.E. Butt Grocery Company Third-Party Solutions, Inc. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Apollo Enterprises, Inc. And Walgreen Company//Cross-Appellee,Texas Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves cross-appeals concerning whether an insurance company must first exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act before filing a lawsuit for alleged overcharges by health care providers. Appellant Texas Mutual Insurance Company sued several pharmacies and billing companies for negligent misrepresentation and money had and received, claiming they over-billed for prescription drugs. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted partial summary judgment against Texas Mutual. The Court of Appeals, relying on prior precedent, determined that the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission holds exclusive jurisdiction over medical fee disputes within the Act's pervasive regulatory scheme. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as Texas Mutual had not exhausted its administrative remedies.

Workers' Compensation ActAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionMedical Fee DisputesPharmaceutical Fee GuidelineOverbillingNegligent MisrepresentationMoney Had and ReceivedStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 05-16-00875-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2018

Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company, America First Insurance Company, the Netherlands Insurance Company, and America First Lloyds Insurance Company A.K.A. America First Insurance Company v. GLS Masonry, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by several insurance companies (Appellants) against GLS Masonry, Inc. (Appellee) after a take-nothing judgment in their suit to collect unpaid insurance premiums. The dispute centered on whether GLS's masonry workers were independent contractors or employees for premium calculation purposes, particularly for workers' compensation and general liability policies. The Appellants argued that GLS owed additional premiums due to audits reclassifying workers as employees and based on a lack of liability insurance for subcontractors. The trial court sided with GLS, finding that the insurance companies failed to establish the applicability of certain labor code provisions and did not sufficiently prove that GLS owed additional premiums, especially considering evidence that the workers were independent contractors and payments were made on policies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Insurance DisputeUnpaid PremiumsCommercial General LiabilityPremium AuditIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee ClassificationBreach of ContractTexas Appellate LawFactual Sufficiency ReviewSworn Account Claim
References
12
Case No. 14-09-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Weingarten Realty Management Company and Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal from a trial court's summary judgment in an insurance-coverage dispute. Appellants Weingarten Realty Management Company and Scottsdale Insurance Company sought to compel appellee Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company to defend Weingarten Management in an underlying lawsuit where it was mistakenly identified as a lessor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, allowing the consideration of extrinsic evidence as a narrow exception to the eight-corners rule. This exception applies when an insurer proves, using extrinsic evidence, that the party seeking defense is a stranger to the policy and could not be entitled to coverage under any circumstances, without touching on the merits of the underlying claim. The court concluded that Weingarten Management was not an actual lessor and therefore not an insured under Liberty Mutual's policy.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendEight-Corners Rule ExceptionExtrinsic EvidenceSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Policy InterpretationLessor StatusContractual DisputesTexas Civil Procedure
References
30
Case No. 01–04–01277–CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Zapata County and Zapata Independent School District v. Conocophillips Company on Its Own Behalf and as Successor–by–merger to Conoco Inc. (f/K/A Continental Oil Company, Inc.) Brandywine Industrial Gas, Inc. Phillips Petroleum Company El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

This opinion consolidates 19 separate suits filed by various Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud through schemes to undervalue oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial courts granted the Oil Companies' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the cases because the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Tax Code provides the exclusive means for addressing such claims, establishing a pervasive regulatory scheme through the Appraisal Review Board, and offering remedies like challenging valuations or back-appraising omitted property. The court held that the Taxing Units cannot bypass the comprehensive statutory scheme by recharacterizing tax disputes as common-law fraud cases.

Ad Valorem TaxProperty ValuationTax FraudAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeAppraisal Review BoardOil and Gas TaxationMineral InterestsExhaustion of Remedies
References
14
Case No. 05-95-01259-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1997

Lemke Concrete Construction v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, Union Mutual Insurance Company of Providence, Emcasco Insurance Company, Patterson, Lamberty, Stanford, Walls & Dwyer, P.C. and John R. Robinson

Lemke Concrete Construction appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Employers Mutual Casualty Company, Union Mutual Insurance Company of Providence, and Emcasco Insurance Company (carriers). Lemke alleged breach of contract, negligence, breach of good faith, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act and Texas Insurance Code, stemming from the carriers' handling of a workers' compensation claim and a subsequent retaliatory discharge suit filed by Lemke's employee, Jesus Gonzalez. The carriers had settled the workers' compensation claim but denied coverage for the wrongful discharge claim, leading Lemke to incur legal fees and a settlement. The trial court granted summary judgment for the carriers, concluding that the policies did not cover wrongful discharge claims and, thus, the carriers owed no duty to defend or settle such claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding that without coverage, Lemke's claims of bad faith and negligence were meritless, and estoppel could not create coverage.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingInsurance CoverageNegligenceTexas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection ActTexas Insurance CodeVicarious LiabilityRetaliatory Discharge
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 11,396 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