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. 14-02-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Limited, and Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Limited, D/B/A Village Builders v. Great American Insurance Company, American Dynasty Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Markel American Insurance Company Gerling America Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Westchester Fire Ins Company

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute between homebuilder Lennar Corporation and its CGL insurance carriers over damages caused by defective stucco (EIFS) applied to homes. The court analyzed whether negligently defective construction constitutes an "occurrence" and distinguished between covered costs (repairing actual water damage) and non-covered costs (preventative EIFS replacement, overhead). While affirming summary judgment for several insurers due to unmet self-insured retentions based on individual homes as separate occurrences, the court reversed for American Dynasty and Markel, citing unresolved factual issues regarding "known loss" and policy conditions. Lennar's extra-contractual claims against American Dynasty were ultimately denied for lack of proven damages or statutory violations.

Insurance Policy InterpretationConstruction DefectsCommercial Liability InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimsStucco DefectsDuty to IndemnifySelf-Insured RetentionsKnown Loss PrincipleSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Law
References
96
Case No. 13-19-00127-CV; 13-19-00128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2020

United Specialty Insurance Company v. Wasp Construction, LLC

This is a consolidated appeal concerning insurance coverage and breach of contract. Appellant, United Specialty Insurance Company (USIC), as the assignee of Alonzo Cantu Construction, Inc. (Cantu), contested summary judgments granted to Farmers Insurance Exchange (FIE) and Wasp Construction, LLC (Wasp). USIC argued that Cantu was an additional insured under FIE's policy and that Wasp breached its subcontract by not defending or indemnifying Cantu in an underlying personal injury suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgments, ruling that FIE's policy required a written additional insured agreement to exist prior to the loss, which was not the case, and that USIC's claims against Wasp were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice in the underlying litigation.

Insurance CoverageSubcontract AgreementAdditional InsuredDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentRes JudicataContract InterpretationPre-Loss Written AgreementAppellate Court Decision
References
38
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
Case No. 03-01-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2001

David Aston D/B/A Aston Landscape & Construction and Aston Landscape & Construction, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility

The case involves an appeal filed by David Aston d/b/a Aston Landscape & Construction and Aston Landscape & Construction, Inc. against the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the appellants failed to file a timely perfecting instrument. The trial court's judgment was signed on September 7, 2000, making the notice of appeal due by October 9, 2000. Appellants' Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Motion for New Trial were also filed past their respective deadlines. Despite a request from the Clerk for proof of timely filing, no response was received, leading to the dismissal.

JurisdictionAppeal DismissalTimelinessNotice of AppealMotion for New TrialFindings of FactConclusions of LawAppellate ProcedureTexasCourt of Appeals
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 30039[U]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance

Plaintiffs Extell West 57th Street and Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. sued their insurers, including Zurich and Travelers, after a construction crane at the One57 building was damaged by Superstorm Sandy. The insurers denied coverage under a builder's risk policy, leading to a dispute over whether the crane qualified as a 'temporary work' and if it was excluded as 'contractor's tools.' The lower court denied summary judgment, finding factual issues. On appeal, the majority granted summary judgment to the defendants, declaring no coverage. The dissenting opinion argues that the crane should be considered a 'temporary structure' and the 'contractor's tools' exclusion should not apply, but concurs that summary judgment for plaintiffs was improper due to a factual dispute regarding whether the crane's value was included in the total project value.

Insurance coverage disputeBuilder's risk policyTemporary structuresContractor's tools exclusionSuperstorm SandyConstruction crane damageSummary judgmentContract interpretationEjusdem generisNoscitur a sociis
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2004

HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. v. Royal Surplus Lines Insurance

This case involves HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. (HRH) and National Union Fire Insurance Company (National) seeking to establish Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company's (Royal) obligation to defend HRH in an underlying action and reimburse legal fees. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially ruled that Royal was obligated to defend HRH and reimburse legal fees from December 30, 1999. Upon appeal, this order was modified to change the reimbursement start date to November 22, 2000, and otherwise affirmed. The court rejected Royal's argument that a specific endorsement overrode a general blanket additional insured endorsement, which Royal claimed would make them coprimary insurers with National. The duty to defend was clarified to be triggered upon the commencement of the underlying action against HRH.

Insurance disputeGeneral contractor liabilityAdditional insured endorsementDuty to defendInsurance reimbursementSummary judgmentPolicy interpretationConstruction site accidentPrimary insuranceOther insurance clause
References
0
Case No. CA 12-00454
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2012

DONALD BRAASCH CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. STATE INSURANCE FUND

Plaintiffs Donald Braasch Construction, Inc. (DBC) and CNA Insurance Company sought a declaration that defendant State Insurance Fund was conditionally obligated to indemnify them in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. The lawsuit stemmed from an accident in March 1994, and the personal injury plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit in April 1995. DBC failed to notify the defendant insurer until May 1997, prompting the defendant to disclaim coverage due to untimely notice. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, seeking reimbursement for half of the settlement amount and defense costs in the underlying lawsuit. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding existing questions of fact regarding the reasonableness of the delay. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that there remained triable issues of fact concerning whether DBC's belief in noncoverage for the accident and resultant litigation was reasonable.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentReasonable excuseNoncoverageAppellate DivisionPersonal injuryIndemnificationDefense costs
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security Insurance

The case examines if an insurer's breach of the duty to defend obligates it to indemnify the insured for a settlement, even when coverage is contested. Plaintiff Servidone Construction Corporation, an insured, settled an underlying claim after its insurer, Security Insurance Company, withdrew defense citing a policy exclusion. The lower courts ruled that Security was liable to indemnify Servidone due to its breach and the possibility of coverage. The Court of Appeals reversed, asserting that a duty to indemnify only arises from an actual covered loss, not merely from a breach of the duty to defend. It placed the burden on the insurer to prove the loss was not covered and remitted the case for further proceedings to determine actual policy coverage.

Duty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractInsurance LawSettlement AgreementCoverage DisputeWorkers' CompensationFederal Tort Claims ActCommon Law IndemnityContractual Indemnity
References
13
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 02049
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2015

Turner Construction Co. v. Harleysville Worcester Insurance

Plaintiffs, Turner Construction Company et al., appealed a judgment declaring that Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company was not obligated to defend or indemnify them in an underlying personal injury action. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the judgment to explicitly declare Harleysville's non-obligation and otherwise affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Harleysville. The court ruled that even if plaintiffs had additional insured status, they were not entitled to coverage due to their failure to provide timely notice of the occurrence to Harleysville, notifying the insurer nine months after the accident and over two months after the personal injury action commenced. The court found plaintiffs' belief that no claim would be asserted against them to be unreasonable, given their awareness of the injured worker's severe accident at the construction site.

Insurance CoverageNotice RequirementAdditional InsuredTimeliness of NoticePersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyAppellate DecisionUnreasonable Delay
References
3
Case No. 03-11-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2013

the Attorney General of Texas and the Commissioner of Insurance v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas, Texas Farmers Insurance Company, and Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning public-information requests made to the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) for rate-filing information submitted by a group of appellee insurers. The central issue was whether this information, declared "open to public inspection" by the Insurance Code, was subject to exceptions under the Public Information Act (PIA). The district court initially ruled that the PIA's exceptions applied. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the clear and unambiguous language of former section 2251.107 of the Insurance Code mandated public inspection without regard to the PIA's exceptions. The court emphasized plain-meaning statutory construction and dismissed arguments based on legislative history and constitutional challenges.

Statutory InterpretationPublic Information ActInsurance CodeOpen RecordsTrade SecretsRate FilingsTexas Department of InsuranceAppellate ReviewGovernment TransparencyTakings Clause
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 18,838 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