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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1939

City of Wichita Falls v. Travelers Ins. Co.

The City of Wichita Falls sought indemnity from The Travelers Insurance Company for a judgment paid to C. H. Phillips, who was injured by a city truck. The insurance policy excluded coverage for city employees. The central question was whether Phillips, a relief worker whose labor was directed by the City, was an employee of the City at the time of injury, including his transportation to and from work. The court affirmed that Phillips was indeed a city employee, despite being paid by a federal relief agency, and that his injury occurred within the scope of his employment. Additionally, a non-waiver agreement between the City and Travelers was deemed valid, preserving the insurer's policy defenses. The judgment in favor of The Travelers Insurance Company was affirmed.

Automobile Insurance PolicyEmployee Exclusion ClauseBorrowed Servant RuleNon-Waiver Agreement ValidityCourse of EmploymentFederal Relief WorkerMunicipal LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeWorkers' Compensation ContextContract Interpretation
References
28
Case No. E2006-02679-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2007

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Unitrac Railroad Materials, Inc.

Travelers, a workers' compensation insurer, sought subrogation from Unitrac for benefits paid to an injured employee, Calvin Jones. Jones, an employee of Labor Headquarters, was injured while working for Unitrac. Travelers alleged Unitrac's negligence and breach of a service agreement between Labor and Unitrac. The Trial Court dismissed Travelers' claim, finding Unitrac was a co-employer of Jones, thus invoking workers' compensation tort immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Unitrac met the criteria for a special employer and that Travelers was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between Labor and Unitrac.

Subrogation ClaimWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityCo-employment DoctrineTort ImmunityThird-Party BeneficiaryIndemnification AgreementService Contract DisputeAppellate AffirmationContract InterpretationLoaned Employee Doctrine
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. v. Travelers Group, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, compelling The Travelers Group to indemnify plaintiffs for a $2.3 million judgment in a personal injury action, and denied Travelers' cross-motion. The Travelers Group had issued a workers' compensation policy to FTJ Environmental, Inc., whose employees were injured while working in New York City. The policy's coverage was explicitly conditioned on the work in New York being necessary or incidental to FTJ's work in New Jersey, which was listed as the coverage state. The appellate court found no evidence in the record to support this condition and noted that the policy limit was $100,000 per accident, not $2.3 million. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order, denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation PolicyEmployers Liability PolicyPolicy CoverageLabor Law § 240Burden of ProofInsurance Policy LimitsAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travelers Insurance Co. v. Arnold

William F. Arnold, claiming to be an employee of Shamrock Van Lines, filed a workers' compensation claim against Shamrock's insurer, The Travelers Insurance Company, after sustaining accidental injuries. A jury found Arnold was an employee and totally and permanently incapacitated. The insurer appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for both the employment status and the permanency of incapacity, and alleged jury misconduct. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Shamrock had the right to control the details of work for both Fleming and Arnold, establishing an employer-employee relationship, and that lay witness testimony was sufficient to support the jury's finding of permanent incapacity. It also found no probable injury from alleged jury misconduct.

Texas LawWorkmen's CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRight of Control TestTotal Permanent DisabilityJury FindingsMedical EvidenceLay Witness TestimonyAppellate Procedure
References
16
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

Romano v. Whitehall Properties

An employee of Sorbara Construction Company was injured at a construction site owned by Whitehall Properties, LLC. The employee received workers' compensation benefits from Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company of America, Sorbara's carrier. The employee also filed a negligence action against Whitehall and the general contractor, Kreisler Borg Florman General Construction Co., Inc. This negligence action was settled, with Travelers contributing under a general liability policy. Whitehall and Kreisler appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion to extinguish Travelers' workers' compensation lien against the settlement. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the anti-subrogation rule did not apply because Travelers' workers' compensation obligation arose from a separate policy issued to Sorbara, not the general liability policy covering Whitehall and Kreisler, thus allowing Travelers to assert its lien.

Workers' Compensation LienAnti-Subrogation RuleGeneral Liability PolicyPersonal Injury DamagesConstruction AccidentEmployer NegligenceInsurance CarrierSettlement AgreementAppellate DecisionThird-Party Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wing

Maurice Wing suffered a work-related injury in 1976 and filed a worker's compensation claim. He died in June 1977 from unrelated causes. Subsequently, his attorney and Travelers Insurance Company reached an oral settlement for 20% disability, which Travelers later repudiated, arguing the claim extinguished upon Wing's death. Gladys Wing, as Administratrix of Maurice Wing's estate, revived the action. The trial court found the settlement binding, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that worker's compensation benefits do not survive to a personal representative when the employee's death is unrelated to the occupational injury, thus the settlement lacked consideration.

Survival of ActionSettlement Agreement EnforcementDeath Unrelated to Employment InjuryPersonal Representative RightsAdministratrix RoleDisability Benefits TerminationAccrued Benefits DisputeRepudiation of Oral SettlementAppellate Court ReviewTennessee Civil Procedure Rule 25
References
5
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of St. Lawrence v. Travelers Insurance

George Donnelly, an employee of St. Lawrence County, sustained injuries at work and subsequently sued Mater Dei College and Rockwell International Power Tools Corp. These entities then initiated third-party actions against St. Lawrence County, seeking indemnity or contribution for potential damages. St. Lawrence County, a self-insurer for workers' compensation, attempted to compel its general liability carrier, Travelers Insurance Companies, to defend and indemnify it. Travelers denied coverage, citing a policy exclusion for bodily injury to an employee arising from employment or obligations to indemnify others due to such injury. The Special Term initially ruled the exclusion inapplicable for contribution claims, but the appellate court reversed, concluding that the exclusion covered both full and partial indemnification (contribution) and that Travelers was not obliged to defend or indemnify the county.

Insurance exclusionindemnitycontributiondeclaratory judgmentthird-party actiongeneral liabilityemployee injuryappellate courtpolicy interpretationtort law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 9,455 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