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

State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Conn

This appeal concerns State Farm's challenge to a trial court's award of uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits to Appellees under an automobile liability insurance policy. Sherrie Ann Conn, a passenger, was killed in an accident caused by Stephanie Ann Laux, whose vehicle was insured by State Farm. Appellees received liability benefits from State Farm and UM/UIM benefits from Conn's separate Allstate policy. Appellees then sought additional UM/UIM benefits from the Laux policy, which State Farm denied based on an exclusion for vehicles owned by or regularly available to the insured. The appellate court distinguished this case from prior rulings that broadly interpreted the UM/UIM statute's purpose to protect against financially irresponsible motorists. Instead, it aligned with cases prohibiting claimants from recovering both liability and UM/UIM benefits under a single policy, especially when the at-fault driver was not financially irresponsible. The court concluded that allowing such recovery would improperly transform UM/UIM coverage into general liability insurance, contrary to the statutory intent to protect against the negligence of *others*. Consequently, the trial court's judgment awarding UIM benefits was reversed.

Uninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoverageAutomobile Liability PolicyInsurance Policy ExclusionsUM/UIM BenefitsStatutory ConstructionPublic Policy in InsuranceNegligence of OthersFinancial Responsibility LawTexas Appellate Law
References
6
Case No. 14-22-00450-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2024

Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company v. Artemiz Freeman

This is a dissenting opinion in a case appealed from the 113th District Court, Harris County, Texas. The majority reversed the trial court's summary judgment, which was granted to Artemiz Freeman. The central issue revolves around the validity of a 'regular use exclusion' in an insurance contract by Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company, and whether it contravenes Texas public policy regarding uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits. The dissenting justice argues the majority erred by requiring Freeman to prove worker's compensation benefits, ignoring agreed damages, and subverting UM/UIM coverage's purpose. It asserts that the regular use exclusion, especially for employer-owned vehicles, conflicts with the Texas Insurance Code and public policy, which mandates UM/UIM coverage to 'follow the person' and place the injured claimant in a position as if the financially irresponsible motorist had been insured. The dissent also highlights that worker's compensation benefits are inapplicable for altering the underinsured nature of the claim and are not intended to make an injured party whole.

Uninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoverageRegular Use ExclusionTexas Public PolicyInsurance Contract InterpretationSummary Judgment AppealWorkers' Compensation ReimbursementDamages CalculationAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Law
References
38
Case No. 03-03-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., D/B/A Jeanne N. Taylor D.D.S., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor had sued State Farm, alleging that the insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing her business a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinct from "auto liability insurance" as defined in Article 5, Subchapter A of the Texas Insurance Code. The court further concluded that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) had the authority under Article 5.02 to regulate such policies under other rating laws, thus making PIP and UM/UIM coverage not mandatory for Taylor's specific policy.

Insurance LawMulti-peril PolicyHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
21
Case No. 12-14-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2015

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Rickie Sims

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeals the trial court's judgment regarding uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage for Rickie Sims. Liberty Mutual argues that the Chesapeake Policy unambiguously provides $250,000 in UM/UIM coverage, and the trial court erred by submitting the issue of policy limits to the jury and entering a $1 million judgment. Liberty Mutual asserts Sims waived reliance on a corrected admission by treating policy limits as a factual dispute. The appellant contends policy limits are a question of law, ripe only at judgment, and that injecting insurance limits into the trial was prejudicial, violating Texas Rule of Evidence 411. Liberty Mutual seeks reversal and rendition of judgment for $250,000, or in the alternative, a new trial solely on the policy limits.

Insurance LawUninsured Motorist (UIM)Underinsured Motorist (UIM)Policy LimitsContract InterpretationJury Charge ErrorEvidentiary ExclusionPrejudiceJudicial AdmissionsAppellate Procedure
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Appellant Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S. appealed a district court's summary judgment dismissing her suit against State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor alleged that State Farm violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without providing Personal Injury Protection (PIP) or Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. State Farm contended that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) has authority to regulate such auto insurance under the multi-peril subchapter, making PIP and UM/UIM non-mandatory for this specific policy type. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of State Farm, concluding that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinguishable from general "auto liability insurance" under the relevant subchapter, and TDI exercised its authority to regulate it differently.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentMulti-peril InsuranceHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) CoverageTexas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas v. Kidd

This case addresses whether an insured can recover the same loss under both uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) and personal injury protection (PIP) coverages of a standard automobile insurance policy in Texas. The Supreme Court consolidated two cases, Kidd and Gerlich, where lower courts refused to enforce a policy provision barring duplication of UM and PIP benefits. The Court held that a non-duplication-of-PIP-benefits provision is valid and enforceable, reversing the judgments of the courts of appeals. The decision clarifies that this offset provision prevents double recoveries, rather than reducing UM/UIM policy limits or causing insureds to recover less than actual damages, and is consistent with Texas statutes and common law.

Automobile InsuranceUninsured/Underinsured MotoristPersonal Injury ProtectionInsurance Policy InterpretationDouble RecoveryNon-Duplication ClauseCollateral Source RuleStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawPolicy Offsets
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Violanda Soledad v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

Violanda Soledad sued Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company after it denied her uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) insurance claim. Soledad was injured as a passenger in a single-vehicle accident caused by a co-employee's negligence while both were in the course and scope of their employment. After receiving workers' compensation benefits, Soledad filed a claim for UM/UIM benefits under her personal policy, asserting damages exceeded the workers' compensation coverage. Texas Farm Bureau denied the claim, arguing that Soledad was not "legally entitled to recover" damages from the owner or operator of the uninsured vehicle due to the exclusive-remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Texas Farm Bureau, which the appellate court affirmed, concluding that Soledad was not legally entitled to recover from her employer or co-employee.

Uninsured MotoristUnderinsured MotoristUM/UIM CoverageWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentInsurance Policy InterpretationNegligenceBodily InjuryTexas Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. Texas Council Risk Management Fund

Moneta Lynn Hill brought suit against her governmental employer’s self-insurance fund, Texas Council Risk Management Fund (the Fund), seeking uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits after sustaining injuries in a work-related motor vehicle accident. Hill argued that UM/UIM coverage should be presumed due to the Fund's failure to reject it in writing, as mandated by the Texas Insurance Code. The Fund countered that the Insurance Code does not apply to self-insurance funds established by governmental units. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Fund, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Article 715c of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes exempts governmental self-insurers from the Insurance Code's provisions. The court also deemed Hill's claims for subrogation offset and attorney's fees as moot and not ripe, respectively.

Self-insuranceGovernmental unitsUninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeSummary Judgment AppealStatutory InterpretationWorkers' CompensationInterlocal Cooperation ActAppellate Court DecisionRisk Management Fund
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunn v. Hackett

Plaintiffs Theodore Howard Dunn, Sr., and Zelma D. Dunn, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in an uninsured motorist (UM) coverage dispute. Theodore Dunn was injured while driving his employer's (Holiday Inn, Inc.) van, receiving workers' compensation. The Dunns sued the at-fault driver, Ronnie L. Hackett, and served State Farm, their personal UM carrier. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Holiday Inn, by not rejecting UM coverage in writing as required by T.C.A. § 56-7-1201(a)(2), had primary UM coverage through Old Republic Insurance Company. The court also ruled that an insurance policy's deductible could not apply to uninsured motorist coverage, thereby concluding State Farm's coverage was secondary.

Uninsured Motorist CoverageSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawPrimary and Secondary CoverageWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAutomobile Insurance PolicyRejection of CoverageDeductible ApplicationLegislative Intent
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Mutual v. Kinser

The case addresses whether a workers' compensation carrier has a subrogation right to benefits paid to an employee under their personal uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance coverage. Michael Kinser, injured in an automobile accident during employment, received workers' compensation benefits from Liberty Mutual. After receiving payment from the at-fault driver's insurer, Liberty Mutual sought subrogation from Kinser's personal UIM policy with State Farm. The trial court denied Liberty Mutual's claims, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the Texas Labor Code's subrogation provision applies to 'damages' from a third party liable in tort or contract, not to contractual UIM benefits, especially when the employee paid the premiums. Consequently, Kinser was not liable for conversion.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation RightsUninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UIM)Insurance LawTexas Labor CodeContractual BenefitsTortious ActSummary JudgmentAppellate AffirmationPersonal Insurance Policy
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 1,253 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