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. 14-00-00081-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2002

Superior Laminate & Supply, Inc. v. Formica Corporation and Patrick Weaver

The case concerns an appeal by Superior Laminate & Supply, Inc. against Formica Corporation. Superior, a distributor, sued Formica, its former supplier, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and promissory estoppel after Formica terminated their distributorship agreement. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against Superior, disregarding some jury findings. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. The appellate court found Superior's fraud claim was barred by the statute of limitations, as the jury determined Superior should have discovered the fraud by August 17, 1990, over six years before filing suit. The court also upheld the trial court's novation instruction regarding the breach of contract claim and properly disregarded the promissory estoppel findings because an enforceable contract existed. Justice Edelman dissented, arguing that an injury from fraudulent inducement occurs upon actual failure to perform, not merely upon discovery of the false promise if performance is ongoing.

Breach of ContractFraudPromissory EstoppelStatute of LimitationsNovationMerger DoctrineAppellate ReviewTake-Nothing JudgmentTexas LawDistributor Agreement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Superior Snubbing Services, Inc. v. Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc.

Superior Snubbing Services, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc. The case originated from an injury sustained by a Superior employee, Daryll Faulk, while working under a Master Service Agreement between Superior and Mitchell Energy Corporation (now Devon Energy Operating, L.P.). Faulk sued Energy and others, leading to a settlement, after which Energy and Mitchell sought indemnity from Superior based on the contract. Superior argued that Energy's claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Texas Labor Code and the contract was unenforceable under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that under Texas Labor Code section 417.004, third-party beneficiaries like Energy are not permissible indemnitees because the agreement was not directly with the 'third party'.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationContractual LiabilityTexas Labor CodeOilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate ReviewReverse and Remand
References
12
Case No. 05-0202
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2007

Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc. v. Superior Snubbing Services, Inc.

Daryll Faulk, an employee of Superior Snubbing Services, Inc., was injured and subsequently sued Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc., among others. Energy later settled with Faulk and sought indemnity from Superior, based on an indemnity provision in Superior's contract with Mitchell Energy Corporation. The dissenting opinion addresses whether Texas Labor Code section 417.004 allows Energy to claim indemnity from Superior when no direct written indemnity agreement existed between them. Justice Johnson, in dissent, argues for a literal interpretation of the statute, stating that it requires a direct contractual agreement between the employer and the third party for indemnity liability. The dissent asserts that this interpretation aligns with legislative intent, particularly the 1989 workers' compensation reforms aimed at reducing employer costs and preserving employer immunity from common-law claims. It further contends that the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (TOAIA) does not negate this workers' compensation provision. The dissenting opinion concludes by stating it would affirm the court of appeals' judgment, thereby denying Energy's indemnity claim against Superior.

Workers' CompensationIndemnity AgreementsStatutory InterpretationThird-Party LiabilityTexas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActEmployer ImmunityLegislative IntentContract LawDissenting OpinionSupreme Court of Texas
References
17
Case No. 02-10-00161-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2011

Richmont Holdings, Inc., Nukote Holding, Inc., Nukote International, Inc., Inkbrary, LLC, Superior Acquisitions LLC, John P. Rochon, Sr., John P. Rochon, Jr., Kelly Kittrell, Russell MacK, C & R Services, Inc., and Kenneth R. Schlag v. Superior Recharge Systems, L.L.C. and Jon Blake

This case concerns an appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Appellants, Richmont Holdings, Inc. et al., initiated the appeal after the trial court denied their request to arbitrate a dispute arising from an employment agreement with appellees, Superior Recharge Systems, L.L.C. and Jon Blake. The core issue was whether the appellants had waived their right to arbitration through their litigation conduct and if the employment agreement, which specified court venue rather than arbitration, mandated arbitration. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the employment agreement, the subject of the dispute, did not include an arbitration provision and that appellants failed to demonstrate that arbitration was required for this particular agreement. The court also noted the appellants' extensive delays and invocation of the judicial process before seeking arbitration.

ArbitrationWaiverMotion to CompelVenue DisputeEmployment ContractNon-competeAppellate CourtTexas Court of AppealsLitigation DelayContract Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Superior Commercial Carpet Service, Inc. v. American Chain & Cable Co.

Bessie Highsmith sued Superior Commercial Carpet Service, Inc. for injuries sustained while working for American Chain and Cable Co., Inc. Superior Commercial Carpet Service, Inc. then filed a third-party action against American Chain and Cable Co., Inc., seeking indemnity and contribution based on alleged employer negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act as a bar to the third-party claim. On appeal, Superior Commercial Carpet Service, Inc. argued that the employer should remain a party to allow for apportionment of negligence under the Texas Comparative Negligence Act, even without financial liability. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that no legal requirement exists to keep a non-liable employer as a third-party defendant for abstract negligence apportionment.

Workers' CompensationComparative NegligenceSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionIndemnityContributionEmployer ImmunityAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
9
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. 03A01-9709-CH-00395
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1998

Deborah H. Steele v. Superior Home Health Care of Chattanooga, Inc., and David Twombley - Concurring

Deborah H. Steele sued her former employer and supervisor, Superior Home Health Care of Chattanooga, Inc. and David Twombley, for sexual harassment under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and for outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded Steele $1.2 million in compensatory and $60,000 in punitive damages, later remitted to $850,000 compensatory. On appeal, the Court affirmed the jury's finding of hostile environment sexual harassment against both defendants, concluding that Twombley was individually liable as an aider and abetter, and upheld the outrageous conduct claim against Twombley. However, the Court reversed the finding of quid pro quo sexual harassment against Superior due to a lack of evidence of tangible job detriment. The Court found no reversible error in the admission of evidence or jury instructions, and upheld the attorney's fees awarded against Twombley.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressOutrageous ConductTennessee Human Rights ActEmployer Vicarious LiabilitySupervisor Individual LiabilityAiding and Abetting HarassmentCompensatory DamagesRemittitur of Damages
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1959

Superior Insurance Company v. Kling

W. E. Kling, a partner in Kling-Gunter Cotton Gin Company, suffered a work-related injury resulting in the loss of his left arm. He sought compensation from Superior Insurance Company, the workmen's compensation carrier, who denied coverage arguing Kling was a partner, not an employee. Kling counterclaimed for total and permanent disability, asserting that the insurer was estopped from denying coverage or that the policy acted as a special indemnity contract. The trial court and Court of Civil Appeals found in favor of Kling, awarding him total and permanent disability benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that despite Kling not being an "employee" under the Workmen's Compensation Act as a partner, the insurer was estopped from denying a special contract of insurance, given their knowledge of his status and acceptance of premiums for his coverage.

Workmen's CompensationPartnership LawEmployee StatusInsurance CoverageEstoppel DoctrineSpecial Indemnity ContractTotal Permanent DisabilityArm AmputationMedical TestimonyTexas Civil Statutes
References
25
Case No. E2014-00005-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2015

Michael Morgan v. Superior Catering Services

This case involves an appeal concerning an age discrimination claim. The plaintiff, Michael Morgan, initially sued Superior Catering Services. Later, Connelly Dean Cofer, Lynda Cofer, and Dean's Coffee Service were added as defendants. The key issues revolved around insufficient service of process on the newly added defendants and the admissibility of hearsay testimony. The trial court initially granted a new trial due to the improper admission of hearsay statements, but then reversed itself, reinstating the jury's verdict based on other evidence. The appellate court found that the service of process was indeed insufficient and that the hearsay error was not harmless, influencing the jury's decision. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Age DiscriminationImproper Service of ProcessHearsay EvidenceWaiverApparent AuthorityHarmless ErrorJury VerdictRemandAppellate ReviewProcedural Error
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kahn v. Superior Chicken & Ribs, Inc.

The plaintiff, Yousuf Mohammad Kahn, initiated this action against his former employer, Superior Chicken & Ribs, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning overtime pay. The court had previously dismissed claims related to meal periods and statutory contributions. The defendant subsequently filed for summary judgment on the outstanding overtime claims, contending that Kahn was exempt from overtime requirements as an executive or administrative employee. The court determined that Kahn satisfied both the 'salary basis' and 'duties' components of the exemption's short test, citing his application for a managerial position, prior work experience, sole on-site supervisory role, distinct uniform, and prior self-identification as a manager to medical professionals and in a bankruptcy filing. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby ruling that Kahn was indeed exempt from federal and state overtime pay regulations. The defendant's request for attorneys' fees was denied due to procedural non-compliance with Rule 11 and the absence of a bad faith finding under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

FLSAOvertime PaySummary JudgmentExecutive ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionNew York Labor LawManagerial DutiesSalary Basis TestDuties TestEmployment Law
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 416 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