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. 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

Continental Casualty Company v. Theraco, Inc.

Continental Casualty Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America sued Theraco, Inc. for additional workers’ compensation premiums, disputing the classification of physical therapists as independent contractors. Theraco’s insurance contracts with CNA and Travelers included provisions for premiums based on employees or persons posing a risk of workers’ compensation liability. The Department of Commerce and Insurance and the trial court initially sided with Theraco, ruling the physical therapists were independent contractors and not liable for additional premiums. However, upon appeal, this Court affirmed the independent contractor status but reversed the decision regarding the "risk of loss" provision. The Court concluded that the insurers were exposed to the risk of defending potential lawsuits, even if only to litigate the therapists' employment status. Consequently, Theraco was found liable for retrospective premiums totaling $44,089 to CNA and $97,522 to Travelers.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsIndependent Contractor StatusEmployer-Employee RelationshipRisk of Loss ProvisionInsurance Contract InterpretationRetroactive Premium AssessmentPhysical TherapistsAppellate ReviewAdministrative Agency DecisionStatutory Employee
References
17
Case No. 05-95-01259-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1997

Lemke Concrete Construction v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, Union Mutual Insurance Company of Providence, Emcasco Insurance Company, Patterson, Lamberty, Stanford, Walls & Dwyer, P.C. and John R. Robinson

Lemke Concrete Construction appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Employers Mutual Casualty Company, Union Mutual Insurance Company of Providence, and Emcasco Insurance Company (carriers). Lemke alleged breach of contract, negligence, breach of good faith, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act and Texas Insurance Code, stemming from the carriers' handling of a workers' compensation claim and a subsequent retaliatory discharge suit filed by Lemke's employee, Jesus Gonzalez. The carriers had settled the workers' compensation claim but denied coverage for the wrongful discharge claim, leading Lemke to incur legal fees and a settlement. The trial court granted summary judgment for the carriers, concluding that the policies did not cover wrongful discharge claims and, thus, the carriers owed no duty to defend or settle such claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding that without coverage, Lemke's claims of bad faith and negligence were meritless, and estoppel could not create coverage.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingInsurance CoverageNegligenceTexas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection ActTexas Insurance CodeVicarious LiabilityRetaliatory Discharge
References
31
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06892 [121 AD3d 481]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2014

Matter of Emerald Claims Mgt. for Ullico Cas. Ins. Co. v. A. Cent. Ins. Co.

Petitioner, Emerald Claims Management for Ullico Casualty Insurance Company, as subrogee of Randolph Meyers, sought "loss transfer" reimbursement from A. Central Insurance Company, an adverse insurer, under Insurance Law § 5105. Petitioner had paid workers' compensation benefits to its insured after a motor vehicle accident and sought reimbursement for no-fault benefits. Respondent asserted a disclaimer of coverage due to noncooperation. The Supreme Court confirmed two arbitration awards in favor of the petitioner, and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this judgment. The arbitrators' decision was upheld as rational, construing Insurance Law § 5105 (a) to provide a direct right to reimbursement regardless of the respondent's disclaimer of coverage. The Appellate Division also found that the respondent waived any jurisdictional arguments by fully participating in the arbitration.

Insurance LawWorkers' CompensationSubrogationLoss TransferCompulsory ArbitrationDisclaimer of CoverageNoncooperationAppellate ReviewJudgment AffirmationInsurance Policy
References
6
Case No. 2-03-270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

Continental Casualty Company v. Salvidor Davilla

This case is an appeal from a workers’ compensation dispute where Salvidor Davilla sought judicial review of a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel's decision concerning his compensable injury not extending to his left knee. A default judgment was initially granted in favor of Davilla against Continental Casualty Company. The appellate court determined that Continental Casualty Company's motion for new trial and subsequent appeal were timely, based on evidence of late notice of the default judgment. However, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the Labor Code requirements regarding notice to the TWCC and consideration of the appeals panel decision were met. Furthermore, Continental Casualty Company failed to satisfy the first prong of the Craddock test, as it did not prove its failure to answer was due to accident or mistake rather than conscious indifference.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice of JudgmentCraddock TestJurisdictionTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' Compensation
References
50
Case No. 03-05-00547-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2006

Gary Milner D/B/A Gary's Industrial MacHine and Fabrication Company v. Balcke-Durr, Inc., and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company

This appeal addresses whether Gary Milner d/b/a Gary's Industrial Machine and Fabrication Company properly perfected a mechanic's and materialman's lien, impacting his claim against an indemnity bond. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of appellees Balcke-Durr, Inc. and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, ruling that the lien was not perfected. Milner challenged this decision on two grounds: the affidavit's certification and its timely filing. However, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Milner's lien affidavit failed to reference the months in which work was performed, a critical statutory requirement. Consequently, the court concluded that the non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding lien perfection precluded Milner's claim.

Mechanic's LienMaterialman's LienIndemnity BondSummary JudgmentLien PerfectionTexas Property CodeStatutory ComplianceSubcontractorAffidavitTimeliness
References
23
Case No. 09-01-511 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2002

American National Insurance Company, and American National Property and Casualty Company v. Frank E. Cannon, II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated

This is an interlocutory appeal from a class certification order. American National Insurance Company (ANICO) and American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) appealed the certification of a class action brought by former agents (Frank E. Cannon II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover). The agents alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Insurance Code, seeking declaratory judgments regarding non-compete provisions and repayment of advance agreements. The appellate court found that individual issues, such as the reasonableness of non-compete restrictions and reliance on oral representations for advance payments, predominated over common issues. Consequently, the court determined that the requirements for class certification under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)(4), (b)(2), and (b)(1)(A) were not satisfied. The class certification order was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealContract DisputeNon-compete ClauseAgent AgreementsInsurance AgentsDeclaratory JudgmentStandingRipenessPredominance
References
20
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. M2013-00898-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. State of Tennessee

This case addresses an appeal by American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, and other Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies, challenging retaliatory insurance premium taxes imposed by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. The core issue revolves around whether Pennsylvania's surcharges for three specific Workers' Compensation funds are imposed upon Tennessee-domiciled insurance companies doing business in Pennsylvania, thereby triggering Tennessee's retaliatory tax statute. The Tennessee Claims Commission ruled in favor of the State, and the insurance companies appealed. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the Claims Commission's decision, concluding that the Pennsylvania surcharges constitute a burden on insurance companies and that the imposition of Tennessee's retaliatory tax is constitutional and proper, rejecting arguments related to due process, UAPA, Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause, and Uniformity Clause.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance Premium TaxPennsylvania Workers' CompensationTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationInterstate CommerceDue ProcessUniform Administrative Procedures ActFull Faith and CreditEqual Protection Clause
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 11,678 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