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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2000

New York State Thruway Authority v. CBE Contracting Corp.

This case involves an indemnification action initiated by the owner of a construction project, the New York State Thruway Authority, against a subcontractor. The action arose from personal injuries sustained by a laborer. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and this decision was subsequently affirmed. The defendant's contention that the amendment substituting the New York State Thruway Authority as plaintiff violated due process was rejected by the court. Furthermore, the court found no genuine issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's supervisory control, determining that the laborer was a special employee of the defendant and that the defendant was judicially estopped from asserting otherwise due to a prior action where it successfully argued exclusive control.

Construction accidentIndemnificationSummary judgmentDue processStandingSpecial employeeJudicial estoppelScaffold collapsePersonal injurySubcontractor negligence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.G.M. Insulation, Inc. v. Gardner

R-J Taylor General Contractors, Inc. and its subcontractors challenged a determination by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Public Work, which found their fire station construction project subject to prevailing wage requirements under Labor Law § 220. The Bureau concluded that the Bath Volunteer Fire Department (BVFD), despite being a not-for-profit corporation, functioned as a municipal department, and the fire station construction was a public work project. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge this determination. The court affirmed the Department of Labor's finding, concluding there was substantial evidence that BVFD was the functional equivalent of a municipal corporation and that the project served a public benefit. Consequently, the prevailing wage requirements were applicable, and the petition was dismissed.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Work ProjectMunicipal CorporationFire Protection ServicesNot-for-Profit CorporationLabor Law § 220CPLR Article 78Functional EquivalencyState Environmental Quality Review ActConstruction Contract
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aluminum Co. of America v. Commercial Contracting Co. of San Antonio

Alcoa sued Commercial Contracting Co. based on an indemnity clause in their contract, seeking to recover a $6,000 settlement paid to Bobby G. Holloway and associated legal fees. Holloway, a subcontractor's employee, was injured at Alcoa's plant due to what Alcoa alleged was negligence by Commercial's subcontractor or by an Alcoa employee who was a 'borrowed servant' of the subcontractor. The jury found that the subcontractor's employees were not negligent and that Alcoa's employees were not borrowed servants. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings that Alcoa's employees were not borrowed servants and that negligence was not conclusively established against the subcontractor.

Indemnity ContractBorrowed EmployeeEmployer NegligenceSubcontractor NegligenceProximate CausationJury FindingsAppellate AffirmationContractual LiabilityPersonal Injury LitigationWorkmen's Compensation Settlement
References
10
Case No. 01-02-01007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Sheldon A. Etie v. Walsh & Albert Co., Inc

This case addresses the interpretation of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act regarding the scope of statutory employer/employee status and immunity from suit for subcontractors. The appellant, Sheldon A. Etie, was injured by an employee of Walsh & Albert Company, Ltd., a lower-tier subcontractor, while working on a construction site. Etie received workers' compensation benefits but also filed a negligence suit against Walsh & Albert. The central question was whether the general contractor's workers' compensation policy, which covered all subcontractors and their employees, extended immunity to lower-tier subcontractors. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the statutory employer/employee relationship and subsequent immunity from suit extend throughout all tiers of subcontractors when covered by a single workers' compensation insurance policy provided by the general contractor.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityStatutory Employer DoctrineSubcontractor CoverageExclusive Remedy ProvisionFellow Servant ImmunitySummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code InterpretationConstruction Site InjuryTiered Subcontractor LiabilityIndependent Contractor Status
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Corpus Christi v. Acme Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

Amber Electric Company and Acme Mechanical Contractors, Incorporated, subcontractors, sued the City of Corpus Christi, the owner of a public building project, after the prime contractor, La Man Construction, abandoned the project and its payment bond was discovered to be fraudulent. The subcontractors sought recovery from the City on theories of quantum meruit, governmental taking without compensation, and the City's breach of a statutory duty by negligently approving a bogus payment bond. The trial court found in favor of the subcontractors. On appeal, the court reversed and rendered judgment against the subcontractors on the governmental taking and breach of statutory duty claims, finding no compensable claim or statutory liability against the City. The quantum meruit claim was reversed and remanded for a new trial, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the City was reasonably notified that the subcontractors expected payment directly from the City.

Quantum MeruitGovernmental TakingStatutory DutyPayment BondSubcontractor LiabilityPrime Contractor DefaultSurety Bond FraudPublic Works ContractConstruction LawNegligence
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Judlau Contracting, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 permits a partially negligent general contractor to enforce an indemnification provision against its subcontractor for damages attributable to the subcontractor's negligence. The plaintiff, Stephen J. Brooks, an ironworker employed by subcontractor Thunderbird Constructors, Inc., sustained injuries and sued the general contractor, Judlau Contracting, Inc. Judlau asserted a third-party claim for contractual indemnification against Thunderbird, which was initially dismissed by lower courts on the grounds that Judlau's partial negligence precluded indemnification under the statute. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute does permit such indemnification as long as the provision does not seek to indemnify the general contractor for its own negligence, but only for that portion attributable to the subcontractor. The court clarified that the phrase 'to the fullest extent permitted by law' limits the subcontractor's obligation to its own negligence, thereby enforcing the indemnification provision and remitting the case for further proceedings.

IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceConstruction AccidentGeneral Obligations LawWorkers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationPartial NegligenceHold Harmless ClauseThird-Party Claim
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Republic-Vanguard Insurance Co. v. Mize

This case involves an insurance law coverage dispute arising from the interpretation of an "and/or" clause within a "WORKERS COMPENSATION EXCLUSION" endorsement in a Commercial General Liability Policy. Appellant, Republic-Vanguard Insurance Company, sought a declaratory judgment to determine if it owed a duty to defend or indemnify Appellees, Charlie Mize d/b/a Quality Framing and Doug Settler. Settler, a subcontractor, was injured due to Mize's alleged negligence. The core issue was whether the exclusion applied to subcontractors themselves or only to employees of the insured and employees of any subcontractor. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mize and Settler. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the exclusion unambiguously applied only to employees and not to subcontractors individually, thereby establishing Republic-Vanguard Insurance Company's duty to defend Mize.

Insurance LawCommercial General LiabilityPolicy InterpretationWorkers Compensation ExclusionDuty to DefendDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContract AmbiguityEight Corners RuleSubcontractor Liability
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Krawczyk v. Ehrenfeld

This case involves an appeal by Kanfer General Contracting, Inc., and a cross-appeal by Paz Mast Construction, Inc., from a Supreme Court order that denied their respective cross-motions for summary judgment. The initial action concerned personal injuries. Kanfer, a subcontractor, sought dismissal of a second third-party complaint and all cross claims against it. Paz Mast, the general contractor, pursued conditional summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Roth Metal & Glass Works, Inc., the subcontractor employing the injured plaintiff. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision, granting both Kanfer's and Paz Mast's cross-motions. The court reiterated that a general contractor, not supervising or controlling an injured subcontractor's employee's work, is entitled to full common-law indemnification from a negligent subcontractor.

Summary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationLabor LawPersonal InjurySubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate ProcedureCross-MotionThird-Party ComplaintConstruction Site Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Rhone

This compensation case involves an injured steel worker, Upshur Rhone, and a dispute between two insurance carriers, Traders & General Insurance Company and Casualty Underwriters, over liability for his injuries. The central legal question was whether Rhone was an employee of the general contractor, Beaumont Development Corporation, or its subcontractor, C. H. McDaniel, at the moment of injury, crucial for determining which insurance company was responsible. Rhone was directed by the general foreman, who had authority from both the general contractor and subcontractor, to perform a task related to the subcontractor's steel framework contract. The trial court initially found the general contractor liable, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court concluded that Rhone remained an employee of the subcontractor, McDaniel, as he was performing work of the same character and using the same tools as his regular employment, making Casualty Underwriters, McDaniel's carrier, ultimately liable.

Workers' CompensationLoaned Servant DoctrineEmployer LiabilityInsurance DisputeSubcontractorGeneral ContractorTexas LawAppellate CourtPersonal InjuryEmployment Status
References
2
Case No. 01-11-00882-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2013

Concierge Nursing Centers, Inc. and Houston Concierge Care, L.P. v. Antex Roofing, Inc., Nevco Waterproofing, Inc., Conex Constructors, Inc., and Mitchell Chuoke Plumbing, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by Concierge Nursing Centers, Inc. and Houston Concierge Care, L.P. (Concierge) from a summary judgment in favor of four construction subcontractors in a contract action. Concierge, acting as an assignee of its general contractor Brae Burn Construction Company, Ltd., sought indemnification from the subcontractors for water damage and mold in its facility. The Court of Appeals addressed whether Brae Burn's claims were assignable despite subrogation clauses in its insurance policies and the scope of the subcontractors' indemnity obligations. The court ruled that the claims were indeed assignable and that the indemnity provisions covered the property damage at issue, rejecting the subcontractors' narrow interpretation of 'property.' Additionally, the court found Concierge's expert affidavit on causation to be sufficient. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Contract DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndemnity AgreementSubrogation RightsProperty DamageConstruction DefectWater IntrusionMoldInsurance Policies
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 579 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