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. 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. 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. 01-05-00836-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2007

Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Jesus Espinosa

This workers' compensation case involved an appeal by Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut (appellant) against Jesus Espinosa (appellee) regarding the award of attorney's fees. Travelers challenged the trial court's jurisdiction to order attorney's fees in a post-trial proceeding, arguing insufficient pleadings. Travelers also contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the award of attorney's fees and that the trial court erred by not conditioning the award of appellate attorney's fees on an unsuccessful appeal. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reformed the judgment, conditioning the appellate attorney's fees on an unsuccessful appeal, and affirmed the judgment as reformed, finding the pleadings and evidence sufficient for the attorney's fee award.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesJurisdictionSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Attorney's FeesTexas Labor CodeInsurance CarrierClaimantTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of Discretion
References
11
Case No. 05-16-00816-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2018

Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Billy Thompson

The case involves Billy Thompson, who sustained a compensable injury in 1997 and subsequently sought Lifetime Income Benefits (LIBs) for additional related injuries from Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut. After the Division of Workers’ Compensation denied his claim, a jury in district court found in Thompson's favor, awarding him LIBs. Travelers appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, distinguishing the case from prior precedent. It found sufficient evidence that Thompson's radiculopathy caused indirect physical damage and harm to his feet and hands, thereby entitling him to LIBs.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsSufficiency of EvidenceRadiculopathySpinal InjuriesIndirect InjuryAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury VerdictTexas Law
References
8
Case No. 03-09-00594-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2011

Ricky Thomas Lovell v. Texas Department of Insurance Workers' Compensation Division Network, Healthcare Provider, and Travelers Indemnity Company

Appellant Ricky Thomas Lovell sued for claims related to workers’ compensation decisions for himself and his wife. He named several defendants, including Travelers Indemnity Company, Texas Department of Insurance Division of the Texas Workers Compensation Network (TDI), and a Health Care Provider. The trial court granted a plea to the jurisdiction for two other defendants, Hardee Landry and Amerisure, whose claims were severed. Appellant's appeal primarily focused on Travelers' behavior in processing insurance claims, despite also mentioning TDI. The court interpreted his claims as being against Travelers alone. Since claims remained pending against TDI and Health Care Provider, the court ruled the appeal was an unauthorized interlocutory appeal and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionNonsuitPro Se LitigantInsurance ClaimsThird District Court of AppealsAustinTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
2
Case No. 03-97-00449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1998

Dora Benavidez v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut

Dora Benavidez, injured in the course of her employment, sought additional workers' compensation. Her claim was denied by an administrative hearings officer, a decision affirmed by an appeals panel. She then filed a district court petition against Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, her employer's insurance carrier, challenging the administrative decision. The trial court dismissed her petition for want of jurisdiction because she failed to file a copy of the petition with the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission within the statutory forty-day period, as required by Texas Labor Code sections 410.252 and 410.253. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the forty-day filing requirement with the Commission is mandatory and jurisdictional.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFiling RequirementsAdministrative LawTexas LawTimelinessDismissalProcedural Law
References
10
Case No. 3-91-003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1993

Texas Commissioner of Insurance Georgia D. Flint, Permanent Receiver of Standard Financial Indemnity Corporation v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Employers Insurance of Wausau, a Mutual Company, the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Houston General Insurance Company, CIGNA Insurance Company of Texas, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Standard Financial Indemnity Corporation (SFIC) appealed the Travis County district court's judgment dismissing its suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SFIC alleged antitrust and tortious interference claims, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool and its members conspired to monopolize the market and unfairly treated its servicing company application. The Hidalgo County district court transferred venue to Travis County, a decision SFIC contested. The Court of Appeals found that SFIC had pleaded valid common law causes of action not solely governed by statutory procedures and that the venue transfer based on forum non conveniens was unauthorized under Texas law. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case with instructions to return it to Hidalgo County for further proceedings.

AntitrustTortious InterferenceSubject Matter JurisdictionVenue TransferForum Non ConveniensWorkers' Compensation Assigned Risk PoolTexas Free Enterprise and Antitrust ActStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDistrict Court
References
19
Case No. 03-12-00664-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2014

Ernest E. Figari, Jr. v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut

This case is an administrative appeal filed by Ernest E. Figari, Jr. against Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut concerning the denial of medical benefits for in-home physical therapy. Figari suffered a workplace shoulder injury, and the benefits were initially denied by the Texas Department of Insurance’s Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC), a decision subsequently upheld by the district court. The central issue revolved around whether the in-home physical therapy was medically necessary, with the DWC relying on Official Disability Guidelines (ODG) that stipulate home health services are typically for 'homebound' patients. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding substantial evidence supported the DWC’s determination that Figari was not homebound, thus rendering the in-home therapy not 'reasonably required'.

Administrative AppealsMedical Benefits DenialIn-Home Physical TherapyMedical NecessityOfficial Disability GuidelinesEvidence-Based MedicineWorkers' Compensation Division (DWC)Homebound Patient CriteriaShoulder Injury ClaimsInsurance Carrier Preauthorization
References
2
Case No. 05-15-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2015

Dr. Eric Vanderwerff, D.C. v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation and Commissioner Ryan Brannan, in His Official Capacity and the Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut

This document is an order from the Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. It addresses a motion filed by Dr. Eric Vanderwerff, D.C., who is the appellant in the case. The opposing parties are the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation, Commissioner Ryan Brannan, and The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut. Dr. Vanderwerff's motion, filed on April 22, 2015, requested an extension of time to file a brief. The court granted this motion, ordering that the brief must be filed no later than May 26, 2015.

Motion to Extend TimeBrief Filing DeadlineAppellate CourtDallas CountyTexas Department of InsuranceWorkers' CompensationInsurance CompanyCommissionerProcedural OrderCourt of Appeals
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 12,727 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