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. D-3870
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 1995

Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois v. Fuller

Regina Fuller sued Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois and Travelers Insurance Company (collectively, "Travelers") for gross negligence, alleging their actions caused her father's death due to exposure to hazardous chemicals at American Petrofina, where Travelers was the compensation carrier and performed safety audits. Fuller argued that the Texas Constitution, Article 16, Section 26, created an independent cause of action for punitive damages, and that the Workers' Compensation Act's immunity provision was unconstitutional as it limited her right to punitive damages and violated the Open Courts Provision. The trial court granted summary judgment for Travelers, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Article 16, Section 26 does not create a cause of action for punitive damages where no cause of action for compensatory damages exists, and that the Workers' Compensation Act's immunity provision is constitutional. The Court affirmed the common law requirement of actual damages for punitive damages and stated the Open Courts Provision does not apply to wrongful death actions as they did not exist at common law.

Workers' Compensation ActPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesWrongful DeathGross NegligenceConstitutional InterpretationActual DamagesStatutory ImmunityOpen Courts ProvisionTexas Constitution
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cephalon, Inc. v. Travelers Companies, Inc.

Plaintiff Cephalon, Inc. initiated a declaratory judgment action against The Travelers Companies, Inc. and its four subsidiaries in the Southern District of New York. Cephalon sought a declaration that its off-label promotion of the drug Actiq did not violate the FDCA and caused no injury to Travelers. This suit was filed after Travelers, a workers' compensation insurer, sent pre-suit settlement demands to Cephalon, accusing it of causing damages through off-label drug promotion. Travelers moved to dismiss or transfer the case. The court granted Travelers' motion to dismiss, ruling that Cephalon's declaratory action was improperly anticipatory, having been filed in direct response to Travelers' specific threat of litigation and impending deadlines.

Declaratory JudgmentImproperly AnticipatoryFirst-Filed RuleMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Off-Label Drug PromotionFood, Drug and Cosmetics ActInsurance DisputeWorkers' CompensationForum Selection
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Travelers Insurance Co.

Appellant Billy Austin Goodman was injured in a job-related accident in 1976 and received over $100,000 in workers' compensation benefits from The Travelers Insurance Company. Goodman later pursued a third-party action and settled with one defendant for $308,000, of which Travelers received $50,000 for its subrogation interest. After the third-party action, Goodman incurred further medical expenses, which Travelers refused to reimburse, leading to a denied claim by the Industrial Accident Board. Goodman subsequently sued Travelers, seeking reimbursement and a declaratory judgment for future medical expenses. The trial court granted Travelers' motion for summary judgment, citing TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 8307, § 6a, which mandates that excess recovery from a third-party action serves as an advance against future benefits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the entire net recovery, after reimbursing the insurer for past benefits, acts as an advance fund against future compensation and medical payments, thereby relieving the insurer of further liability until the fund is exhausted.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionSubrogationMedical ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAdvance Against Future BenefitsTexas LawInsurance LiabilityDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travelers Insurance Company v. Brown

Virgil Albert Brown, an agricultural worker, sued Travelers Insurance Company for benefits under a "Voluntary Compensation Endorsement" in a policy issued to his employer, Ranch Managements, Inc., after sustaining an injury. Brown was not covered by Texas Workmen’s Compensation statutes. Travelers argued its liability terminated under the policy's "Coverage C" because Brown had "commenced" a common law damages suit against his employer, even though it was later dismissed. The trial court and Court of Civil Appeals sided with Brown, holding that merely filing the suit, without prosecution to judgment, did not constitute a binding election. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' judgment, disagreeing with Travelers' interpretation that "commence" in the contract meant merely filing a petition; instead, the Court held that "commence" implies issuance and service of citation or a voluntary appearance by the defendant, none of which Travelers proved occurred.

Voluntary CompensationInsurance Policy InterpretationContract LawElection of RemediesCommencement of SuitWorkers' InjuryTexas Supreme CourtCivil ProcedureLiability TerminationBurden of Proof
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travelers Insurance v. Nory Construction Co.

Plaintiff Travelers Insurance Company initiated a subrogation action against Nory Construction Co., Inc. to recover over $3.5 million paid to satisfy a judgment against its insured, the State of New York, following a construction accident. Travelers sought common-law indemnification, arguing Nory was entirely at fault, including amounts paid beyond its policy limits. Nory countered that Travelers could not recover voluntary payments, and the claim was barred by the antisubrogation rule and untimely disclaimer. The court denied Travelers' motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence regarding Nory's sole fault. Ultimately, the court granted Nory's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Travelers' overpayment, made without legal compulsion or Nory's request, constituted a voluntary payment and was therefore not recoverable under equitable subrogation principles.

SubrogationIndemnificationInsurance Policy LimitsAntisubrogation RuleVoluntary Payment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionConstruction LawWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCommercial General LiabilityUmbrella Policy
References
48
Case No. M1999-01932-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2001

Ebbtide Corp. v. The Travelers Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a dispute between an insured, Ebbtide Corporation, its insurance broker, Willis Corroon, and its insurer, The Travelers Insurance Company. Ebbtide's workers' compensation policy lapsed after Willis Corroon failed to forward reinstatement terms from Travelers. The central legal question was whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-6-147 applied to make Willis Corroon an agent of Travelers, or if common law agency principles designated Willis Corroon as Ebbtide's agent. The trial court found, and the appellate court affirmed, that Willis Corroon was Ebbtide's agent due to the absence of a contract between Willis Corroon and Travelers. Consequently, Willis Corroon was deemed negligent for its failure to transmit the crucial information, thereby proximately causing Ebbtide's damages, and the trial court's award of damages was affirmed.

Insurance Agency LawInsurance Broker NegligenceWorkers' Compensation PolicyBreach of ContractAgency RelationshipStatutory InterpretationCommon Law AgencyProximate CauseDamages AwardPolicy Reinstatement
References
29
Case No. NO. 2-02-135-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2003

Carol S. Covington v. the Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island/Connecticut

Carol S. Covington appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in her bad-faith claim against The Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island/Connecticut (Travelers). Covington sought weekly indemnity benefits for a 1990 work injury sustained while employed by American Airlines, arguing Travelers breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to pay. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) had initially awarded Covington benefits, which she appealed. The Court of Appeals found that Covington presented more than a scintilla of evidence that Travelers' liability was 'reasonably clear,' and that a factual dispute existed regarding the extent of her injury. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for trial, concluding that Travelers had not conclusively established a good-faith dispute.

Summary Judgment AppealBad Faith ClaimInsurance LawWorkers' CompensationDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of ContractExtra-Contractual ClaimsDenial of BenefitsAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2-02-135-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2003

Covington v. TRAVELERS INDEM. CO. RI/CONN.

Carol S. Covington appealed a take-nothing summary judgment entered in favor of The Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island/Connecticut concerning her claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing. Covington had suffered a work-related injury in 1990, leading to a workers' compensation claim where Travelers paid limited benefits, but Covington sought further compensation and alleged bad faith, DTPA, and Insurance Code violations. The trial court had granted summary judgment to Travelers on Covington's extra-contractual claims, a decision previously reversed by the appellate court on procedural grounds. In this current appeal, the Court of Appeals found that Covington presented more than a scintilla of evidence suggesting Travelers's liability to pay additional weekly indemnity benefits was "reasonably clear" based on internal documents. The court also concluded that Travelers failed to conclusively establish a good-faith dispute as a matter of law, thus determining that material facts remained in contention. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBad Faith ClaimSummary Judgment AppealDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingInsurance LawAppellate ReviewTexas LawTort ClaimDeceptive Trade Practices ActTexas Insurance Code
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pecker Iron Works of New York, Inc. v. Traveler's Insurance

This case involves a dispute between Pecker Iron Works and Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut concerning the primary versus excess coverage obligations of two liability insurance carriers. Pecker, designated as an 'additional insured' under Upfront Enterprises' policy with Travelers, sought primary coverage after an Upfront worker was injured on a construction site. Travelers contended its policy provided only excess coverage for additional insureds unless explicitly designated as primary in a written contract. The Supreme Court initially agreed with Travelers, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that coverage for additional insureds is presumed primary unless unambiguously stated otherwise. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Pecker was entitled to primary coverage.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSubcontractor AgreementDeclaratory JudgmentContract InterpretationLiability InsuranceConstruction ProjectAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 03-07-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2009

Restaurant Enterprises, L.P. D/B/A or F/D/B/A Austin's Pizza v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Appellant Restaurant Enterprises, L.P. (Austin's Pizza) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Appellee Travelers Indemnity Co. The core dispute revolved around whether Restaurant owed Travelers insurance premiums for more than the initial four stores, as Travelers claimed coverage for all of Restaurant's locations. The trial court had granted summary judgment to Travelers, awarding damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, finding that Travelers failed to demonstrate the absence of material fact issues regarding other insurance coverage held by Restaurant during the relevant period. The court also deemed Travelers' supporting affidavit conclusory and lacking factual basis due to the absence of attached policy documents. Furthermore, the appellate court noted that the trial court's judgment erroneously purported to dispose of all claims, as Restaurant's counterclaims for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and DTPA violations were not addressed. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary judgmentInsurance coverage disputeSworn accountBreach of contractNegligent misrepresentationFraudDTPA violationsAppellate reviewConclusory affidavitMaterial fact
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,218 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