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

XL Specialty Insurance v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.

This memorandum opinion addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case originating from an explosion that killed two workers, one each from Kiewit Offshore Services, LTD (general contractor) and R.B.T. Welders, Inc. (subcontractor). Relatives of the deceased workers filed a negligence lawsuit. XL Specialty Insurance Company, RBT's insurer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Kiewit, denying a duty to defend or indemnify. Kiewit, in turn, sought indemnification from RBT and coverage from XL. The Court granted Kiewit's motion for summary judgment in part, holding RBT must indemnify Kiewit for a $4 million settlement payment, specific attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest, finding Kiewit faced potential liability and the settlement was reasonable. The Court denied Kiewit's claim for undocumented expenses and denied XL's motion for summary judgment asserting statutory employer and borrowed servant defenses under workers' compensation laws for Kiewit, concluding these defenses were not applicable.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityBorrowed Servant DoctrineStatutory EmployerNegligence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hannah v. American Republic Insurance

Phil Hannah filed an action against American Republic Insurance Company (ARIC), alleging interference with his ERISA rights under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 due to employment termination, and wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Hannah’s employment with Americare, an ARIC subsidiary, was terminated in August 2004, after which he signed a Separation Agreement and Release. The Court granted ARIC’s motion for summary judgment on the ERISA § 510 claim, finding the Release valid and rejecting Hannah’s argument of economic duress. For the ERISA § 502 claim, the Court also ruled in favor of ARIC, determining that Hannah failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Plan, and found his futility and waiver arguments to be without merit. Consequently, the Court granted ARIC’s motion for entry of judgment on the benefits claim, denied Hannah’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the entire case with judgment entered in favor of the Defendant.

ERISASummary JudgmentEmployee Benefits PlanWrongful TerminationAdministrative RemediesEconomic DuressRelease AgreementWaiver of ClaimsFutility DoctrineDeferred Compensation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2015

Nance v. Crockett County

Jerry A. Nance sued Crockett County, Tennessee, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging unpaid overtime and compensatory time. Both Nance and the County filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The court denied the County's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding willfulness of the alleged FLSA violations and Nance's eligibility for the 480-hour compensatory time limit due to his emergency response duties. The court also denied Nance's motion for summary judgment on overtime liability and liquidated damages, citing factual disputes over the actual overtime hours worked and the accuracy of his records. Consequently, both parties' motions for partial summary judgment were denied, and the case will proceed to trial.

FLSAOvertimeCompensatory TimeSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWillfulnessEmergency ServicesPublic EmploymentWage and HourEmployment Law
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schaffer v. Benefit Plan of Exxon Corp.

Plaintiffs Phillip W. Schaffer and David W. Stiefel, former employees of Exxon, filed a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) after being denied disability benefits by the Benefit Plan of Exxon Corporation. Both plaintiffs sustained on-the-job elbow injuries. Defendant Exxon moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Plan Administrator's denial of benefits was justified by substantial evidence, indicating that the plaintiffs were either not incapacitated or did not adhere to prescribed treatment plans. The Court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review and determined that the Plan Administrator's decisions were indeed supported by adequate evidence. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and dismissed their claims with prejudice.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentAbuse of Discretion StandardEmployee Benefit PlanPlan AdministratorMedical EvaluationWork-Hardening ProgramDenial of BenefitsJudicial Review
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thrash v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In Re Thrash)

James and Kimberly Thrash, former Chapter 13 debtors, filed an adversary proceeding against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, alleging improper mortgage loan servicing, including misapplied payments, overstated debts, and wrongful foreclosure attempts. Ocwen admitted to some accounting errors and misallocations. The court ruled on cross motions for partial summary judgment, granting Ocwen's motion in part for claims like RESPA violations, negligence, gross negligence, and misrepresentation, citing lack of legal grounds or detrimental reliance from the plaintiffs. However, the court denied Ocwen's motion regarding unreasonable collection efforts, noting it was a fact-intensive issue for trial. The Thrash's motion for summary judgment on automatic stay violations and contempt was also denied, requiring these issues to proceed to trial.

Mortgage ServicingBankruptcy Chapter 13Automatic Stay ViolationContempt of Discharge OrderSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimMisrepresentationUnreasonable Collection EffortsRESPAForeclosure
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Derven v. PH Consulting, Inc.

Marjorie Derven, a salesperson for Advantis Research and Consulting, sued her former employer for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud, claiming she was owed higher commissions on large projects with Eli Lilly. Advantis counterclaimed for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of duty of good faith and loyalty, and unfair competition, alleging Derven operated a competing firm while employed and misused company information. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court denied Derven's motion entirely and granted Advantis's motion regarding Derven's fraud and New York Labor Law claims, but denied it concerning breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court also denied Derven's motion for summary judgment on Advantis's counterclaims due to unresolved factual disputes.

Employment ContractCommission DisputesBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsTrade Secrets MisappropriationDuty of LoyaltyUnfair CompetitionSales Representative
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P.

This case involves a collective-action lawsuit filed by William Parrish and other plaintiffs against Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to misclassification as independent contractors rather than employees. The core issue was whether the plaintiffs, who worked as Directional Drillers Consultants (DDs) and Measurement While Drilling Consultants (MWDs), were employees or independent contractors under the FLSA's economic reality test. The Court analyzed five factors: degree of control, relative investments, opportunity for profit and loss, skill and initiative, and permanency of the relationship. Ultimately, the Court found that the plaintiffs were employees, concluding that Premier exerted significant control over their work and compensation, and their investments in the job were substantially less than Premier's. Consequently, the Court denied Premier's motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and awarded the plaintiffs $363,422.00 in compensatory and liquidated damages.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Employment MisclassificationIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentOvertime CompensationBack WagesLiquidated DamagesEconomic Reality TestOil and Gas Industry
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. AUTOZONERS, LLC

Karen Taylor initiated an action against AutoZoners, LLC, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The case involved cross-motions for partial summary judgment concerning the FMLA claim. Taylor, an order selector, sustained a back injury and argued her absences should be protected under FMLA due to a serious health condition. However, the court determined that Taylor failed to provide sufficient evidence of a 'serious health condition,' specifically lacking proof of sustained incapacity or a chronic condition requiring continuous treatment as defined by FMLA regulations. Consequently, the court granted AutoZoners' motion for summary judgment, denied Taylor's cross-motion, and dismissed the FMLA interference and retaliation claims, with the state law claims dismissed without prejudice.

FMLAFamily and Medical Leave ActRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary JudgmentBack InjuryLumbar StrainSerious Health ConditionIncapacityLight Duty
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 22,564 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