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

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Carter

This appeal concerns a declaratory judgment suit initiated by an unnamed workers' compensation insurance company, referred to as the appellant. The appellant challenged a trial court's ruling that denied its subrogation rights against any recovery made by Johnny Carter from Temple-Inland Forest Products Corporation. Johnny Carter, an employee of Biskamp Electric Company, Inc., sustained injuries at a Temple-Inland plant and received workers' compensation benefits, subsequently filing a third-party action against Temple-Inland. The core issue on appeal was whether the waiver of subrogation endorsement in the insurance policy applied to Temple-Inland Forest Products Corporation, despite variations in naming. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of waiver and affirmed the decision.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverInsurance Policy InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyContract ConstructionTexas LawEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Risk Funding Insurance Co. Ex Rel. Continental Casualty Co. v. Lambert

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment concerning a workers' compensation carrier's waiver of subrogation rights. Larry Lambert, Rogers Patino, and Andres Garcia (appellees), employees of U.S. Contractors, Inc., were injured in a chemical plant explosion and settled with third-party defendants (Memc Pasadena, Inc., J.E. Merit Contractors, Inc., and Albemarle Corporation) for $1.8 million. American Risk Funding Insurance Company (appellant), the workers' compensation carrier for U.S. Contractors, Inc., intervened to seek reimbursement for benefits paid, but Lambert denied the claim due to a prior contract waiving subrogation rights. The trial court granted Lambert's motion for summary judgment, which American Risk Funding appealed. The appellate court addressed five issues raised by the appellant, primarily concerning the validity and scope of the subrogation waiver, including arguments about public policy, lack of consideration, intent to benefit appellees, waiver of future benefits, and common law conversion. The court systematically overruled all of appellant's issues, concluding that the waiver of subrogation does not violate public policy, does not require separate consideration, was intended to apply as contracted, waives rights to future credits, and extinguishes common law claims related to subrogation. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court affirming the summary judgment in favor of Lambert was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverSummary Judgment AppealPublic PolicyContract LawTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsEmployee RightsThird-Party LiabilityReimbursement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Roberts

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSP) appealed a summary judgment ruling that it had waived subrogation rights against Exxon Mobil (Exxon). Exxon had contracted with Savage Refinery Services, requiring Savage to obtain workers' compensation insurance and subrogation waivers from its insurer for liabilities Savage assumed. After two Savage employees were injured due to Exxon's alleged negligence, ICSP paid benefits and Exxon sought a declaratory judgment of waiver. The appellate court examined the contract between Exxon and Savage, concluding that the waiver of subrogation was contingent on Savage assuming indemnity liability for the injuries. Since Savage was not obligated to indemnify Exxon for Exxon's own negligence, the court found ICSP's waiver of subrogation was not triggered. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverContract InterpretationIndemnity ClausesSummary Judgment AppealInsurance EndorsementTexas Appellate LawNegligence LiabilityCommercial ContractsThird-Party Indemnity
References
19
Case No. 07-11-0038-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2012

Westminster Falcon/Trinity L.L.P. v. Chong Shin

This case involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in a subrogation lawsuit. American Zurich Insurance Company (AZIC), as subrogee of The University of Texas Golf Club (UT), sued Barker Roofing, L.P. (Barker) for damages caused by a fire allegedly due to Barker's negligence during the construction of a clubhouse. Barker asserted the affirmative defense of waiver of subrogation, based on a clause in the original construction contract between UT and the prime contractor, Harvey-Cleary Builders (HCB). AZIC argued that two clauses in the subcontract modified the waiver, that the waiver did not apply to business interruption losses, and that the trial court erred by denying AZIC’s motion for partial summary judgment and granting summary judgment for Barker. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the contractual waiver of subrogation applied to subcontractors like Barker and encompassed UT's business interruption losses, as AZIC's policy covered fire damages to the clubhouse. The court held that AZIC's subrogation claim was barred as a matter of law.

Subrogation WaiverConstruction ContractBusiness InterruptionSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationFire DamageNegligence ClaimThird-Party Beneficiary
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

The case addresses the application of Texas's no-fault workers' compensation system, specifically concerning an insurance carrier's right to recoup benefits paid to an injured worker from a third party. The core dispute involves a "subrogation waiver" endorsement in an insurance policy obtained by Savage Refinery Services from its carrier, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, intended to benefit Exxon Mobil Corporation. The central issue is whether the scope of this blanket subrogation waiver is limited by an extrinsic service contract between Savage and Exxon, particularly by a clause stating "to the extent liabilities are assumed." The Texas Supreme Court determined that the standard-form subrogation waiver endorsement only refers to the extrinsic contract to identify the beneficiary and applicable operations, but it does not incorporate any other contractual limitations. Consequently, the court held that the waiver is effective, preventing the Carrier from recovering benefits from Exxon, and reversed the court of appeals' judgment.

Subrogation WaiverInsurance LawContract InterpretationRecoupment RightsThird-Party LiabilityBlanket Waiver EndorsementExtrinsic ContractIndemnity AgreementsTexas Supreme CourtInsurance Policy Construction
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trosclair v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

This case involves an injured galley hand, referred to as Plaintiff, who settled a claim against Chevron U.S.A., Inc. after an injury on an offshore platform. Eagle Insurance Co., the workers' compensation carrier for Plaintiff's employer, sought to enforce a lien on the settlement proceeds, disputing the enforceability of a waiver of subrogation clause. Plaintiff initiated a declaratory judgment action to prevent the enforcement of the lien. The District Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied Eagle's, ruling that the waiver of subrogation was enforceable under Louisiana law, following the precedent of Fontenot v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. The Court also determined that the lack of notice or consent for the settlement did not affect the Plaintiff's right to past benefits, given the waiver of subrogation.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentLouisiana LawOffshore DrillingOCSLALHWCAIndemnity AgreementSettlement
References
12
Case No. 01-15-00453-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2015

the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Kevin Roberts and Exxon Mobil Corporation

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSP) appeals a trial court's summary judgment that denied its worker's compensation subrogation claims and a credit against future benefits. This case stems from an accident at an ExxonMobil refinery where employees of Savage Services, Kevin Roberts and Arturo Munoz, were injured, leading ICSP to pay worker's compensation benefits. ExxonMobil settled with Roberts and Munoz, but ICSP's subrogation rights were not honored due to an asserted waiver of subrogation in the contract between ExxonMobil and Savage. ICSP argues that the waiver is invalid because Savage was not contractually obligated to indemnify ExxonMobil for this specific accident, and that even if a waiver were enforceable, it should not preclude ICSP's statutory right to an advance against future benefits. ICSP seeks a reversal of the trial court's judgment and a new trial.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationWaiver of SubrogationSummary Judgment AppealThird-Party LiabilityContractual IndemnityFuture Benefits CreditConversion ClaimOil Refinery AccidentTexas Civil Procedure
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federated Mutual Insurance v. Woodstock '99, LLC

Plaintiff Federated Mutual Insurance Co., as subrogee of American Hardwall Supply Company of Rome, initiated an action against Woodstock ’99, LLC, seeking to recover over $600,000 for property damage sustained by its insured at the Woodstock ’99 festival. Woodstock, in turn, filed a third-party action against Ace Hardware Corporation. The central dispute revolved around Federated's motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss Woodstock’s Thirteenth Affirmative Defense, which asserted a waiver of subrogation. The court analyzed whether a waiver of subrogation clause in the Woodstock agreement was incorporated by reference into a separate letter agreement between Ace and American. Ultimately, the court determined that the American letter agreement merely referenced the Woodstock agreement for informational purposes and did not demonstrate a clear intent to bind American to the subrogation waiver. Consequently, the court granted Federated's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed Woodstock’s Thirteenth Affirmative Defense, alongside its Eleventh Affirmative Defense by stipulation.

Summary JudgmentSubrogationContract InterpretationInsurance PolicyWaiver ClauseIncorporation by ReferenceProperty DamageNegligence ClaimThird-Party ActionFestival Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Zurich Insurance Company as Subrogee of the Varsity Golf Club, LTD D/B/A the University of Texas Golf Club v. Barker Roofing, L.P.

American Zurich Insurance Company (AZIC), as subrogee of The University of Texas Golf Club (UT), filed a lawsuit against Barker Roofing, L.P. (Barker) seeking damages for a fire allegedly caused by Barker's negligence during clubhouse construction. The trial court granted summary judgment for Barker, upholding its affirmative defense of waiver of subrogation, which was stipulated in the general contract between UT and the prime contractor, Harvey-Cleary Builders, and extended to subcontractors. AZIC appealed, contending the waiver did not cover business interruption losses or uninsured losses, and that indemnification clauses in Barker's subcontract should negate the waiver. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Barker was a third-party beneficiary of the waiver, which applied to fire damages covered by UT's property insurance, including business interruption. The court also found the indemnification clauses did not override the specific waiver of subrogation, and AZIC could not pursue claims for uninsured losses as UT was not a party.

SubrogationWaiver of SubrogationConstruction LawContract InterpretationProperty InsuranceBusiness Interruption LossesFire DamageAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentThird-Party Beneficiary
References
40
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
Showing 1-10 of 996 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