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. 04-25-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company v. Javier A. Libson, Nosbil, Inc., Jose Luis Ramirez, Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company

Appellants Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company appealed a no-evidence summary judgment. Cantu's claims of negligence per se, negligent hiring, training, retention, and negligent entrustment were affirmed. However, the summary judgment for Cantu's ordinary negligence claims was reversed and remanded. Additionally, the judgment favoring the insurance defendants (Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company) was also reversed, as their motion for summary judgment was not properly heard. The case involved a collision between Cantu and Jose Luis Ramirez, an employee of Nosbil, Inc., in foggy conditions, leading to Cantu suing for negligence and insurance claims.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseDuty of CareBreach of DutyCausationInsurance ClaimsVicarious Liability
References
36
Case No. NO. 14-08-00408-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2008

in Re Stanford Group Company

This case involves the consolidation of a petition for writ of mandamus and an interlocutory appeal. Stanford Group Company challenged a trial court's decision denying its motion to compel arbitration against former employees D. Mark Tidwell and Charles W. Rawl. Tidwell and Rawl had filed an employment discrimination suit, alleging constructive discharge for refusing to participate in illegal business practices. The appellate court concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applied. It ruled that the employees' judicially-created wrongful termination claim was not exempt from arbitration under FINRA rule 13201, which only excludes statutory employment discrimination claims. Consequently, the court dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction and conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActWrit of MandamusInterlocutory AppealEmployment LawWrongful TerminationConstructive DischargeSecurities IndustryFINRA RulesJudicially Created Cause of Action
References
25
Case No. 01-00-00586-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company

This case involves indemnity and insurance claims arising from oilfield litigation. Appellants, Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company, appealed a summary judgment granted to appellees, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company. The trial court had ruled that mutual indemnity provisions in an oil and gas drilling contract were void under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment, holding that the contract was enforceable up to the extent of mutual coverage and dollar limits, and that its indemnity provisions were conspicuous.

Oilfield LitigationIndemnityInsurance ClaimsTexas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationMutual Indemnity ObligationConspicuousnessAppellate ReviewWell Blowout
References
18
Case No. 3-94-122-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1995

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. State Board of Insurance, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Houston General Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, United States Fire Insurance Company

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (Facility) appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an order by the State Board of Insurance. The Board had ordered the Facility to indemnify several servicing companies for legal expenses incurred in litigation brought by Standard Financial Indemnity Company (SFIC). The Facility argued that Article 5.76-2, section 2.05(i) of the Texas Insurance Code, which states the Facility 'may not indemnify the servicing companies,' terminated the servicing companies' right to indemnification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the servicing companies had a vested contractual right to indemnification which arose when they entered into servicing company agreements, and that section 2.05(i) could not be applied retroactively to impair these vested rights. The court found that the law existing at the time the contracts were made, which included the Facility's bylaws allowing for indemnification, was incorporated into the agreements.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawContractual RightsVested RightsRetroactive Application of LawIndemnificationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance Code
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dean v. Tower Insurance

Plaintiffs Douglas and Joanna Dean purchased a home and obtained a homeowners' insurance policy from Tower Insurance Company of New York. Following the discovery of extensive termite damage, the plaintiffs undertook significant repairs, preventing them from immediately moving into the property. Before they could establish full residency, a fire completely destroyed the house. Tower Insurance Company disclaimed coverage, asserting the dwelling was unoccupied and thus did not qualify as a 'residence premises' under the policy's terms. The court found that the term 'residence premises,' defined only as 'where you reside' and with 'reside' undefined, was ambiguous in these circumstances, precluding summary judgment for the insurer. The decision highlighted factual issues regarding Douglas Dean's daily presence at the property and his intent to move in, citing other legal interpretations of occupancy in insurance contexts. The Appellate Division's order, which found the policy ambiguous, was affirmed.

Homeowners InsurancePolicy InterpretationContract AmbiguityResidency RequirementOccupancy ClauseFire DamageDisclaimer of CoverageSummary Judgment StandardsInsurance Contract BreachProperty Insurance
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nationwide Insurance v. Empire Insurance Group

This case concerns a dispute over insurance coverage. Marcos Ramirez was injured while working for Fortuna Construction, Inc. at premises owned by 11194 Owners Corp. Fortuna had subcontracted work from Total Structural Concepts, Inc. and agreed to add Total Structural as an additional insured on its general liability policy with Empire Insurance Group and Allcity Insurance Company. Ramirez sued 11194 Owners Corp. and Total Structural. Total Structural then commenced a third-party action against Fortuna. Nationwide Insurance Company, as Total Structural's insurer and subrogee, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Empire and Allcity after discovering Total Structural was an additional insured on their policy, demanding coverage for the Ramirez action. The Supreme Court granted Nationwide's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding that Total Structural failed to provide timely notice of the Ramirez action to Empire and Allcity as required by the policy. The court emphasized that timely notice is a condition precedent to recovery and that lack of diligent effort to ascertain coverage vitiates the policy. Consequently, the appellate court granted Empire and Allcity's cross-motion, declaring they are not obligated to defend or indemnify Nationwide/Total Structural.

Insurance CoverageTimely NoticeCondition PrecedentDeclaratory JudgmentAdditional InsuredSubrogationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal InjuryGeneral Liability Policy
References
8
Case No. 03-00-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

All American Life Insurance Company American General Life Insurance Company American National Insurance Company American National Life Insurance Company of Texas IDS Life Insurance Company And USLIFE Life Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas

Several insurance companies appealed a district court judgment affirming the Comptroller's assessment of premium and maintenance taxes on 'internal rollover' transactions, where policyholders transfer accumulation values within the same company for new policies. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reviewed the construction of Texas Insurance Code articles 4.11 and 4.17 de novo. The court determined that 'internal rollovers' do not involve funds being 'received' or 'collected' by the insurance companies, as the funds remain within the company. Therefore, these transactions are not subject to the premium and maintenance taxes. The judgment of the district court was reversed in part, and the case was remanded for a determination of the refund amounts owed to the companies.

Insurance LawTax LawPremium TaxInternal RolloversStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of AppealsInsurance CompaniesComptrollerGross PremiumsTax Refund
References
9
Case No. 01-13-00016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2014

Wuxi Taihu Tractor Company, Ltd. v. the York Group, Inc.

Wuxi Taihu Tractor Company, Ltd. (Taihu) appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of The York Group, Inc. (York) in a bill-of-review proceeding. Taihu sought to overturn a default judgment previously issued against it. York had originally sued Taihu for unfair competition and tortious interference regarding casket designs. Despite York's defective service of process through the Texas Secretary of State, Taihu filed a pro se answer. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Taihu's pro se answer constituted an appearance in the underlying suit, thereby negating its argument of lack of notice and the need to prove the elements required for a bill of review.

Summary JudgmentBill of ReviewDefault JudgmentService of ProcessHague ConventionCorporate RepresentationPro Se AppearancePersonal JurisdictionUnfair CompetitionTortious Interference
References
57
Case No. 03-00-00655-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2001

Lon H. Cantrell v. Farmers Group, Inc. and Mid-Century Insurance Company

Lon H. Cantrell appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Farmers Group, Inc. and Mid-Century Insurance Company by the District Court of Travis County. Cantrell, an injured supply clerk for Farmers, had his workers' compensation benefits denied by Mid-Century after he declined a light-duty job offer. He subsequently sued Farmers and Mid-Century for conspiracy and breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, determining that Cantrell's action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, as his suit was filed more than two years after the denial of his benefits. The court upheld the precedent that the cause of action accrues at the point of benefits denial.

Workers' compensation benefitsStatute of limitationsSummary judgmentBad faith insurance claimDenial of coverageAccrual of cause of actionEmployer liabilityInsurance carrierGood faith and fair dealingTexas Court of Appeals
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Advisory Group, Ltd. v. COUNTRY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiffs Pension Advisory Group, Ltd., Paul Hinson, and Larry Walters, along with Third Party Plaintiff Diversified Growth Solutions, sued Country Life Insurance Company and its Vice President, Dale Hall. The lawsuit stems from an alleged breach of confidentiality, theft of trade secrets related to an innovative insurance product developed by Hinson, unfair competition, libel, business disparagement, theft, and tortious interference with prospective contracts. Plaintiffs claim they disclosed trade secrets to Defendants under a mutual confidentiality agreement, only for Defendants to later assert ownership of the product information and file a protest with the USPTO, causing significant financial impact. The court partially granted and denied motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for a more definite statement, dismissed Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim against Hall, and denied motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction against Hall and to transfer venue. Multiple claims were ordered to be re-pled for greater specificity.

Intellectual PropertyTrade Secrets MisappropriationBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionLibelBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferencePersonal JurisdictionMotion to DismissMotion to Transfer Venue
References
93
Showing 1-10 of 12,872 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