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

Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc.

Appellant Leonardo Rodriguez appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc. in a suit concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rodriguez was injured while working and asserted negligence claims against Lockhart Contracting, arguing he was not an employee of Prime Source, the Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Lockhart Contracting had a co-employment agreement with. The appellate court identified a genuine issue of material fact regarding Rodriguez's employment status with Prime Source, as he had not completed the necessary employment paperwork. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had barred Rodriguez's suit based on the exclusive remedy provision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation DisputeExclusive Remedy DefenseProfessional Employer Organization LiabilityCo-employment RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor Code ComplianceWorkplace Injury ClaimAppellate Review StandardFactual DisputeNegligence Action
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. v. RFD 55th Street LLC

Plaintiff A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. sought to foreclose upon 76 mechanic’s liens filed against condominium units and asserted claims for breach of contract and quasi-contractual remedies. The defendants, including RFD 55th Street LLC and individual unit owners, moved to discharge the liens and dismiss the causes of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss all four causes of action. The mechanic's liens were found invalid under Lien Law § 13 (5) as the deeds of conveyance to third-party purchasers contained the required trust fund provision and were recorded before the liens were filed. The breach of contract claim against non-parties was dismissed due to lack of privity and insufficient allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The quasi-contractual claims were also dismissed as a valid written contract existed covering the disputed subject matter.

Mechanic's LiensLien LawMotion to DismissBreach of ContractQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentCorporate Veil PiercingPrivity of ContractConstruction Law
References
17
Case No. No. 04-1049
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2008

in Re Poly-America, L.P., Ind. and D/B/A Pol-Tex International, and Poly-America Gp, L.L.C.

This retaliatory-discharge case examines an employee's arbitration agreement, which includes provisions for splitting arbitration costs, limiting discovery, and eliminating punitive damages and reinstatement remedies available under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court must decide if these provisions are unconscionable and, if so, whether the contract's severability clause can preserve the arbitration right. The court holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the arbitrator to assess the unconscionability of the fee-splitting and discovery-limitation provisions as applied. However, the provisions precluding remedies under the Workers’ Compensation Act are found to be substantively unconscionable and void under Texas law. These unconscionable provisions are deemed severable, and the remainder of the arbitration agreement is enforceable. The petition for mandamus is conditionally granted.

Retaliatory DischargeArbitration AgreementUnconscionabilitySeverabilityWorkers' Compensation ActEmployment LawMandamusStatutory RightsFee-Splitting ProvisionDiscovery Limitations
References
78
Case No. action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

U.W. Marx, Inc. v. Koko Contracting, Inc.

Koko Contracting, Inc., a subcontractor, ceased work on a school construction project after U.W. Marx, Inc., the general contractor, failed to make three successive progress payments. Marx declared Koko in default and terminated the contract. In action No. 2, the Supreme Court found in favor of Koko, ruling that Marx's failure to pay was a material breach of contract. Marx and its surety, Continental Casualty Company, appealed, arguing Koko's recovery was precluded by its failure to provide seven days' written notice before suspending work as required by the subcontract. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Marx's prior material breach relieved Koko from its obligation to strictly comply with the notice provision, as the clause was primarily for the subcontractor's benefit regarding remobilization costs.

Construction ContractMaterial BreachNonpaymentSubcontractorGeneral ContractorAppealNotice to CureSuspension of WorkContract PerformanceContractual Obligations
References
9
Case No. E2016-01155-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2016

Aarene Contracting, LLC v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut

This case addresses whether a contractor's notice of violations under the Tennessee Prompt Pay Act, sent via Federal Express and e-mail, met the statutory requirement of registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. Aarene Contracting, LLC sued Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation for unlawfully withholding retainage and failing to establish an escrow account. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Krispy Kreme, finding a lack of strict compliance with the notice provision. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that substantial compliance is sufficient given that Krispy Kreme received actual notice and was not prejudiced. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the appropriate relief for Aarene Contracting, LLC.

Construction LawPrompt Pay ActStatutory InterpretationNotice RequirementsSubstantial ComplianceStrict ComplianceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTennessee LawRetainage
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Luna

Johnny Luna, an at-will employee, was terminated by Poly-America after filing a worker's compensation claim and subsequently sued for wrongful discharge and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code. Poly-America sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Luna had signed. Luna challenged the arbitration agreement's substantive unconscionability, specifically pointing to provisions on fee-splitting, limited remedies (prohibiting punitive damages and reinstatement), limited discovery, and the inability to apply a 'good cause' standard. The court determined that while individual provisions might not be unconscionable, the cumulative effect of the high arbitration costs and the significant limitations on statutory remedies rendered the agreement as a whole substantively unconscionable. The court also rejected Poly-America's argument for severability, concluding the problematic provisions were integral to the agreement. As a result, the court conditionally granted Luna's petition for writ of mandamus, instructing the trial court to withdraw its order compelling arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementSubstantive UnconscionabilityMandamus ReliefEmployment LawWorker's Compensation ActWrongful DischargeRetaliation ClaimFee-Splitting ProvisionRemedy LimitationDiscovery Limitation
References
36
Case No. 02-16-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

Howard Michael Lauderback, Individually, and D/ B/A New Era Contract Services v. FMWB Inc.

Appellant Howard Michael Lauderback appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee FMWB, Inc. Lauderback, a contractor for mowing services with the Texas Department of Transportation, entered into a subcontract with FMWB. A dispute arose when Lauderback withheld payment from FMWB, alleging that FMWB's certificate of workers' compensation insurance was inadequate, despite a special provision in the original TDOT contract requiring such insurance. FMWB subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting claims for breach of contract and a suit on a sworn account. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that FMWB was not statutorily obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance under Texas Labor Code Ann. § 505.013, and Lauderback failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding FMWB's performance or his entitlement to an offset.

Breach of ContractSummary Judgment AppealSubcontract AgreementWorkers' Compensation PolicyTexas Labor CodeContractual PerformanceAffirmative DefenseOffset ClaimAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Poly-America, L.P.

Johnny Luna, an employee of Poly-America, L.P., filed a retaliatory-discharge suit after sustaining a work injury and being fired. His employment contract included an arbitration agreement with provisions limiting remedies (no punitive damages or reinstatement), requiring fee-splitting, and limiting discovery. Luna challenged the agreement's unconscionability. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the remedy-limitation provisions were substantively unconscionable and void under Texas law but were severable due to a severability clause. The Court also held that the trial court properly left the assessment of fee-splitting and discovery-limitation unconscionability to the arbitrator, as applied during the arbitration process, and conditionally granted Poly-America's petition for mandamus to compel arbitration after severance of the voided remedy clauses.

Arbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityWorkers' Compensation ActRetaliatory DischargeEmployment ContractSeverability ClauseFee-SplittingDiscovery LimitationsPunitive DamagesReinstatement
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Microtech Contracting Corp. v. Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York

Plaintiff Microtech Contracting Corporation sought a preliminary injunction to stop defendants, including the Mason Tenders District Council and Local 78, from displaying an inflatable rat at its work sites. Microtech argued this conduct violated a 'no-strike' provision in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The District Court denied the motion, citing a lack of jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act because the underlying labor dispute was not subject to mandatory arbitration as per the CBA. The court also held that Section 104 of the Act specifically prohibits injunctions against publicizing labor disputes by non-fraudulent or non-violent means. Furthermore, the court determined that even if jurisdiction existed, the use of the inflatable rat was protected First Amendment speech and did not fall under the 'disruptive activity' clause of the CBA, which was interpreted to apply only to actions similar to work stoppages.

labor disputepreliminary injunctionNorris-LaGuardia Actcollective bargaining agreementFirst Amendmentinflatable ratunion protestno-strike clausearbitrabilityjurisdiction
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 5,547 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