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

Underwriters Life Insurance Co. v. Cobb

The Underwriters Life Insurance Company appealed a judgment awarded to Terrell and Edith Cobb following Underwriters' refusal to pay Edith Cobb's medical insurance claim. The jury found Underwriters liable for breach of contract, bad faith, negligence, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit stemmed from an unlicensed agent's failure to accurately record Mrs. Cobb's medical history on her insurance application, despite the Cobbs providing truthful information. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on liability but ordered a remittitur of $500,000.00 from the $1,000,000.00 punitive damages award, finding it excessive. The case was remanded for a new trial unless the remittitur was filed.

Insurance LawBad FaithPunitive DamagesTexas CourtsAgent MisconductMisrepresentationPolicy DenialDeceptive Trade Practices ActNegligenceAppellate Affirmance
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Sanchez

Raul Sanchez initiated a lawsuit against New York Underwriters and David Sampson for various claims, including breach of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Insurance Code, and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). New York Underwriters filed a counterclaim for attorneys' fees under DTPA § 17.50. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing Sanchez's claims, but failed to dispose of the counterclaim. Sanchez appealed, and the court of appeals reversed and remanded the summary judgment. However, the Texas Supreme Court determined that the trial court's order was an interlocutory, not a final, judgment due to the unresolved counterclaim, thereby stripping the court of appeals of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the application for writ of error, reversed the court of appeals' judgment, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional ErrorInterlocutory OrderSummary JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionCounterclaimAttorneys' FeesDeceptive Trade Practices ActGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Supreme CourtPer Curiam
References
6
Case No. 03-02-00107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2002

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company/Richard Hafley v. Richard Hafley/Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company appealed an award of Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs) by the Worker's Compensation Commission to Richard A. Hafley. The district court affirmed the award and granted attorney's fees to Hafley. Hartford argued the Commission improperly calculated Hafley's self-employment income based on net rather than gross income, insufficient evidence supported the award, and Hafley was not entitled to attorney's fees. Hafley cross-appealed, challenging the district court's jurisdiction due to an incorrect county for filing the appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the venue requirement was not jurisdictional and upholding the Commission's discretion in calculating wages for self-employed claimants and the award of attorney's fees.

Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs)Self-Employment IncomeNet vs. Gross Income CalculationAttorney's Fees AwardJurisdiction and VenueStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DiscretionAppellate ProcedureLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 1939

Casualty Underwriters v. Rhone

Upshur Rhone, an employee of C. H. McDaniel, sustained injuries while performing work on a construction site. The central issue was determining which of two insurance carriers, Casualty Underwriters (for McDaniel) or Traders and General Insurance Company (for Beaumont Development Corporation), was liable for workers' compensation. The trial court initially found Beaumont Development Corporation liable, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, assigning liability to McDaniel's insurer, Casualty Underwriters. The Commission of Appeals affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision, concluding that Rhone was employed by McDaniel at the time of injury, thus making Casualty Underwriters responsible. The court also addressed and reconciled perceived conflicts in the jury's findings regarding the permanence and duration of Rhone's injury.

Workers' CompensationEmployee Loaned DoctrineInsurance Coverage DisputeSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityJury Verdict InterpretationAppellate ReviewTexas Commission of AppealsEmployer IdentificationIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. 10-0245
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2011

Patrick O. Ojo, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Farmers Group, Inc., Fire Underwriters Association, Fire Insurance Exchange, Farmers Underwriters Association, and Farmers Insurance Exchange

Justice Willett's concurring opinion in Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc. agrees with the majority's outcome that the Insurance Code, as written, does not support a cause of action for disparate impact discrimination related to credit scoring. However, he sharply criticizes the majority's methodology, particularly its reliance on extratextual aids like legislative history and failed bills, arguing such practices are "inappropriate" when a statute is unambiguous. Willett emphasizes the principle of textualism, asserting that "where text is clear, text is determinative," and warns against the manipulation of legislative history. He also disputes Chief Justice Jefferson's proposed distinction between "contextualizing" and "construing" legislative materials, viewing it as a tenuous attempt to justify the use of unreliable evidence. Ultimately, Justice Willett advocates for consistent, predictable statutory interpretation rooted solely in plain language to ensure clarity and stability in the law.

Statutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryTextualismDisparate ImpactInsurance CodeTexas Supreme CourtJudicial PrecedentConcurring OpinionCredit ScoringAmbiguity
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landmark Chevrolet Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (the dealerships) against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Universal). The dealerships sought to overturn a judgment declaring that Universal had no duty to defend them in two underlying class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits, brought by customers, alleged violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud related to a 'Consumer Services Fee.' Universal denied coverage under the Statute and Title E&O (STEO) policy, arguing that the underlying petitions did not allege truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing violations as required by the policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in Universal's favor, upholding the application of the 'eight-corners' rule and declining to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-LendingTruth-in-LeasingDeceptive Trade Practices ActSummary JudgmentExtrinsic EvidenceAutomobile SalesClass Action
References
8
Case No. 05-17-01032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2018

in Re: ACE American Insurance Company, Underwriters Safety and Claims, Inc., and Dawnmonique Lee

The relators, Ace American Insurance Company, Underwriters Safety and Claims, Inc., and Dawnmonique Lee, were sued in Texas by Doug Vates, an Arizona resident who sustained a work injury in Arizona. Vates had filed a workers' compensation claim in Arizona. The relators filed a motion to dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens, arguing that the claims should be litigated in Arizona, but the trial court denied this motion. The relators subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reviewed the six factors under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 71.051(b) and concluded that all factors favored litigation in Arizona. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its order and dismiss Vates's claims without prejudice.

Forum non conveniensMandamusWorkers' CompensationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeJudicial discretionAppellate remedyArizona lawPersonal injuryChoice of forumJurisdiction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2010

Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Falvey Cargo Underwriting, Ltd.

This case involves Vought Aircraft Industries' claim against its marine cargo insurers, Falvey Cargo Underwriting, Ltd., XL London Market, Limited, and Dornoch Limited, for breach of policy and other claims. A horizontal stabilizer manufactured by Vought was damaged during rail shipment, a peril covered by the marine cargo insurance policy. Vought repaired the stabilizer and sought reimbursement for direct repair costs, overhead expenses, and expediting costs for replacement stabilizers. The court largely dismissed Vought's claims for expediting costs and overhead expenses, finding most were not covered by the policy, though it noted ambiguity in certain policy clauses regarding some shipping costs and overhead. All of Vought's extra-contractual claims, including breach of good faith and fair dealing, unfair insurance practices, breach of repair agreement, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment, were dismissed. XL London Market, Limited's defense asserting it acted solely as an agent for a disclosed principal was denied, indicating a factual dispute.

Marine Cargo InsuranceInsurance PolicyContract InterpretationBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodePolicy AmbiguityOverhead CostsExpediting Costs
References
73
Case No. 01-02-01008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2003

Landmark Chevrolet, Corp. & Bill Heard Chevrolet, Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, 'the dealerships') against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company ('Universal'). The dealerships were sued in two underlying class-action lawsuits by customers alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud due to being charged a 'Consumer Services Fee' for a worthless coupon book. Universal, the dealerships' insurer, declined to defend them under their Statute and Title E&O (STEO) coverage, which only covered claims arising from violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws. Universal then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment in Universal’s favor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the 'eight-corners rule' and concluding that the underlying petitions did not allege facts indicating violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws, and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-Lending LawsTruth-in-Leasing LawsDeclaratory JudgmentClass Action LawsuitsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer Services FeeAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Underwriters v. Strahand

Kinzie Strahand, an employee of Wier Long Leaf Lumber Company, sustained an injury on July 11, 1932. Consolidated Underwriters, the insurer, initially paid $33 in compensation. Strahand later claimed total and permanent disability, a claim denied by the Industrial Accident Board on December 14, 1933. He appealed to the district court of Newton County, Texas, which ruled in his favor with a lump sum award of $2,659.80. Consolidated Underwriters appealed this decision, challenging the notice of injury and the sufficiency of evidence for total and permanent disability. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error.

Workers' CompensationTotal DisabilityPermanent DisabilityNotice of InjuryJurisdictionSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas LawIndustrial Accident Board
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,590 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