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. 03-02-00107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2002

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company appealed an award of Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs) by the Worker's Compensation Commission to Richard A. Hafley. The district court affirmed the award and granted attorney's fees to Hafley. Hartford argued the Commission improperly calculated Hafley's self-employment income based on net rather than gross income, insufficient evidence supported the award, and Hafley was not entitled to attorney's fees. Hafley cross-appealed, challenging the district court's jurisdiction due to an incorrect county for filing the appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the venue requirement was not jurisdictional and upholding the Commission's discretion in calculating wages for self-employed claimants and the award of attorney's fees.

Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs)Self-Employment IncomeNet vs. Gross Income CalculationAttorney's Fees AwardJurisdiction and VenueStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DiscretionAppellate ProcedureLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Walker County Agency, Inc. Hartford had filed a cross-action for contribution, indemnity, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty against Walker County after settling claims with Roy Dean Jackson. Jackson, an employee of a subcontractor to an insured of Hartford, was injured and initiated several lawsuits, including workers' compensation and breach of good faith and fair dealing claims against Hartford. Hartford alleged that Walker County, its agent, improperly provided an insurance binder. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Hartford's claims for contribution and indemnity related to the bad faith settlement. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Hartford's claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, misrepresentation, and common law indemnity regarding the workers' compensation settlement, finding that Walker County failed to negate these causes of action.

Insurance Agent LiabilityBreach of Agency AgreementWorkers' Compensation InsuranceFiduciary Duty BreachSummary Judgment AppealContribution and IndemnityDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Contractual ObligationPrincipal-Agent RelationshipNegligence of Agent
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2008

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

AccuFleet, Inc. appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Hartford Fire Insurance Company regarding an insurance coverage dispute. The case centered on Hartford's duty to defend and indemnify AccuFleet and Continental Airlines, an additional insured, in a lawsuit filed by an AccuFleet employee, Gonzalo Escobar, who was injured in a vehicular collision. The collision involved an AccuFleet vehicle and a Continental ground tug. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision that Hartford had no duty to defend or indemnify Continental, finding Continental did not qualify as an "insured" under the policy. However, the court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding Hartford's duty to defend AccuFleet, concluding that Escobar's allegations were sufficient to trigger Hartford's obligation. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyAutomobile LiabilityAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentContract LawEight-Corners RuleVehicular AccidentTexas Appeals Court
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2005

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The plaintiff, Rx.com, sued its liability insurer, Hartford Fire Insurance Co., for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code, alleging Hartford failed its duty to defend in an underlying suit. Hartford moved to dismiss the Article 21.55 claim, asserting it applies only to first-party claims, not the duty to defend in a third-party context. Analyzing conflicting precedents and applying Erie principles, the court concluded that Article 21.55, the Prompt Payment of Claims Act, does apply to an insured's demand for a defense, rejecting Hartford's arguments regarding the nature of the claim and the statute's workability. The court therefore denied Hartford's motion to dismiss.

Insurance LawDuty to DefendFirst-Party ClaimThird-Party ClaimTexas Insurance CodePrompt Payment of Claims ActStatutory InterpretationBreach of ContractMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company appeals a district court ruling that allowed the State to collect an administrative penalty from Hartford as a surety for Airport Exchange, without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing. Airport Exchange, a currency exchange company, failed to transmit customer funds and was assessed a $37,200 administrative penalty. Hartford, as the surety, was not notified of the administrative hearing against Airport Exchange. The court construed finance code section 153.402(c) and held that procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard for a surety before being held liable for an administrative penalty assessed against its principal. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Hartford's due process rights were violated.

Due ProcessAdministrative PenaltySurety LiabilityNotice RequirementHearing OpportunityFinance CodeBond ProceedsStatutory ConstructionTexas LawAppellant Rights
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1950

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

O. L. Christensen filed two consolidated suits after losing his right eye: one for common-law damages against Q. J. Aaberg and Passmore, and another for workmen's compensation against Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Aaberg's insurer. The core dispute was whether Aaberg's workmen's compensation policy with Hartford covered Christensen, especially as Aaberg claimed he did not intend to cover employees in the specific welding shop where Christensen was injured. The trial court and Court of Civil Appeals initially found coverage, but the Supreme Court of Texas reversed this, ruling that Aaberg did not contract with Hartford to provide compensation coverage for Christensen's employment. Consequently, the judgment in the compensation suit was rendered in favor of Hartford, and Christensen's common-law action for damages was remanded to the trial court.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoverageEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorCommon-Law DamagesConsolidated CasesEmployer LiabilityEye InjuryTexas LawPolicy Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1993

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company appealing a trial court's judgment in favor of the Buckland family. Hartford, a workers' compensation insurer, had issued a policy to Fish Engineering and Construction, Inc. and waived its subrogation rights against Phillips Petroleum and Phillips 66 by contract. Buckland, an injured employee of Fish, received a $3.2 million settlement from Phillips Petroleum and Phillips 66 and a $75,000 settlement from Figgie. Hartford sought a credit for future benefit payments from the Phillips settlement and disputed the award of attorney's fees to Buckland's attorney from the Figgie settlement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Hartford's waiver of subrogation rights also waived its right to future credits and upheld the attorney's fee award to Buckland's attorney, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverAttorney's Fees ApportionmentContractual InterpretationFuture Benefit CreditSummary Judgment ReviewAbuse of Discretion StandardTexas Workers' Compensation ActThird-Party LiabilityInsurance Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case involves a dispute between two insurance companies, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (excess insurer) and Commercial Union Insurance Company (primary insurer), concerning liability for an injury claim. Michael Jutt, an employee of Minuteman Press International, Inc., was injured while on a Minuteman-owned boat. Commercial Union, the primary insurer, denied coverage and refused to defend Minuteman, leading Hartford, the excess insurer, to provide defense and settle Jutt's claim for $135,000. Hartford subsequently sued Commercial Union for breach of fiduciary duty. The District Court affirmed Hartford's standing to sue, recognizing a direct fiduciary duty owed by a primary insurer to an excess insurer, and found that the "paid employees" exclusion in Commercial Union's policy was ambiguous. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Hartford, ordering Commercial Union to pay $135,000 plus interest.

Insurance LawExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceFiduciary DutyEquitable SubrogationPolicy ExclusionAmbiguous Contract TermDeclaratory Judgment ActionStanding to SueMarine Insurance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, a workmen's compensation insurer for a temporary labor contractor (Greene's Temporaries, Inc.), sued Associated Indemnity Company, the insurer for a customer (Frito-Lay Company), seeking subrogation for a compensation claim paid to an injured temporary employee. Hartford contended the loss was covered by Associated's policy as the employee was under Frito-Lay's control. The court reversed the trial court's decision in favor of Hartford, denying equitable subrogation. The appellate court found that Hartford had collected premiums for the temporary employees and was charged with knowledge of the contractual arrangement, thus preventing unjust enrichment if subrogation were granted.

Workmen's CompensationTemporary EmploymentSubrogationInsurance LawBorrowed Servant DoctrineRight of ControlEquitable RemediesUnjust EnrichmentInsurance PremiumsContractual Agreements
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1982

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Hartford, an excess insurer, initiated a lawsuit against primary insurer Michigan Mutual, D.A.L. Construction, and a law firm, Montfort, Healy, McGuire and Salley, seeking to recover a $400,000 settlement portion it paid in an underlying construction site explosion case. The underlying action involved injured parties (the Gobins) who sued entities L.A.D. Associates and DeFoe Corporation, all of whom, along with D.A.L. (Mr. Gobin's employer), were insured by both Michigan Mutual and Hartford. Hartford's claim was predicated on D.A.L.'s potential Dole v Dow Chem. Co. contribution liability, arguing Michigan Mutual or the attorneys should have impleaded D.A.L. in the original suit. Justice Silverman, in a dissenting opinion, argued that an insurer cannot subrogate against its own insured, thus precluding Hartford's claim against D.A.L. and justifying Michigan Mutual's failure to implead. However, the appellate court's final order modified the appealed decision by denying motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, thereby reinstating Hartford's complaint in its individual capacity against Michigan Mutual and Montfort, Healy.

SubrogationExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceContributionIndemnificationSummary JudgmentImpleaderWorkers' Compensation ExclusionInsurer vs. InsuredRelated Corporations
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 463 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