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. 01-19-00852-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2021

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

This case involves two related appeals concerning insurance coverage for bodily injury claims against Exxon Mobil Corporation by its contractor's employees, Kevin Roberts and Arturo Munoz. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. challenged a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Exxon and Starr Indemnity and Liability Insurance Company, arguing its umbrella policy did not provide coverage beyond its CGL policy, as dictated by the Exxon-Savage Contract. Exxon also challenged a summary judgment favoring Starr. The appeals court reversed the judgment against National Union, finding that 'Commercial General Liability insurance' in the contract referred only to primary coverage, not umbrella or excess policies. Consequently, Exxon was not entitled to coverage under National Union's umbrella policy. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Starr, as its bumbershoot policy was also considered an umbrella policy. The case was remanded for reconsideration of attorney's fees and costs.

Insurance Policy InterpretationCommercial General LiabilityUmbrella Liability InsuranceExcess Liability InsuranceAdditional Insured EndorsementSummary Judgment ReviewBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury Claims
References
34
Case No. 14-0901
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2016

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. William Nami

William Nami, a Union Pacific Railroad employee, contracted West Nile virus from a mosquito bite while working in Brazoria County, Texas. He sued Union Pacific under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence for failing to provide a reasonably safe workplace. The jury found Union Pacific 80% responsible, and the trial court awarded Nami damages, which the court of appeals affirmed. On review, the Supreme Court of Texas considered the common-law doctrine of ferae naturae, which limits a property owner's liability for harm from indigenous wild animals unless the owner reduces them to possession, attracts them, or knows of an unreasonable risk. The Court concluded that Union Pacific did not meet these conditions, as it did not attract mosquitoes, could not control them, and the risk of serious infection was not unreasonable, thus precluding liability under FELA. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment for Union Pacific.

FELAFerae NaturaeWest Nile VirusMosquito BitesWorkplace SafetyEmployer LiabilityCommon Law NegligenceCausationIndigenous AnimalsForeseeability
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1994

United Transportation Union Local Unions 385 & 77 v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by the United Transportation Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (collectively, 'the Union') against Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company ('Metro'). The Union challenges Metro's Rule P as a violation of 45 U.S.C. § 60 (Section 60) of the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). Rule P restricts employees from divulging company information or giving statements about accidents to external parties without company authorization, which the Union argues prevents employees from voluntarily furnishing information to interested parties as protected by Section 60. Metro moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute is governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and its exclusive grievance resolution procedures. The court denied Metro's motion, concluding that the Union's claim involves the interpretation of a federal statute (Section 60) and is therefore within federal jurisdiction, not preempted by the RLA.

Federal Employer's Liability ActFELARailway Labor ActRLASubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentRule 12(b)Labor DisputesCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemption
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yoda, LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied defendant National Union Fire's motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment, declaring the insurer’s disclaimer of coverage ineffective under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). The appellate court unanimously modified this order, denying the cross motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal after discovery, citing the lack of conducted discovery. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of National Union’s motion to dismiss, noting lingering questions regarding the parties' intentions, the terms of the subcontract, and National Union’s delay in disclaiming coverage, which prevent a determination that Yoda and Riverhead were not additional insureds. Additionally, the employers’ liability exclusion in National Union's policy was found unavailing, as liability would be indirect if Yoda and Riverhead are determined to be additional insureds.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAdditional Insured StatusEmployers' Liability ExclusionAppellate ReviewDiscovery ProceedingsSubcontract TermsLabor Law Litigation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 1963

International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers v. American Metal Products Co.

The case involved American Metal Products Company (Ampco) suing two labor unions, Local 1198 UAW and International Union UAW, for damages resulting from a violent strike in Obion County, Tennessee. The unions' conduct included harassment, mass picketing, intimidation, and violence, leading to significant disruption of Ampco's business operations. The Circuit Court initially awarded Ampco compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the unions' liability for tortious conduct, emphasizing the state's interest in maintaining public order. However, the appellate court reduced the compensatory damages by limiting the compensable period, resulting in a final judgment of $64,737.59 against the unions, including $50,000 in punitive damages.

Labor RelationsUnion StrikeIndustrial ActionTort LawPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesFederal PreemptionLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)PicketingViolence
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Security Union Casualty Co. v. Hunt

Raymond Hunt, a member of an oil well drilling crew, sustained an injury, leading to a workers' compensation claim. The central dispute revolved around identifying his true employer—either Bridwell and Mayfield or Adams, Brown, and McAlister—to determine which insurance carrier, Security Union Casualty Company or Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, was liable. The Industrial Accident Board initially ruled against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. Subsequently, a district court judgment, agreed upon by the parties, placed liability on Security Union Casualty Company, which then initiated this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding that Hunt was an employee of Bridwell and Mayfield, thereby upholding Security Union Casualty Company's liability, concluding that Adams acted as an agent for Bridwell and Mayfield during the drilling operations.

Worker's CompensationEmployer LiabilityAgency LawOil and Gas IndustryEmployee Status DeterminationInsurance Coverage DisputeJury FindingsAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil AppealsIndustrial Accident Board
References
9
Case No. 06-01-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2001

Duke Energy Field Services Assets, LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA

Duke Energy Field Services Assets, L.L.C. appealed a summary judgment rendered in favor of National Union Fire Insurance Company. Duke, as the current owner of a gas plant, sought a declaratory judgment that National Union was obligated to defend it in a personal injury lawsuit filed by a Zaval-Tex Construction Company employee, Rafael Chavez. The central issue was whether Duke qualified as an 'additional insured' under the liability insurance policy issued by National Union to Zaval-Tex, specifically regarding the policy's 'written contract' requirement. The trial court had granted National Union's motion for summary judgment, concluding Duke was not an additional insured due to the absence of a direct written contract between Duke and Zaval-Tex. The appellate court found that Duke presented sufficient summary judgment evidence to raise fact issues on several legal theories, including successor liability, adoption of the contract by action, and oral assignment, which could establish Duke as a party to the contract with Zaval-Tex. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court for trial.

Insurance PolicyAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentContract LawCorporate AcquisitionSuccessor LiabilityDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Court of AppealsWritten Contract Requirement
References
23
Case No. 07-14-00109-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2015

Doe 1, Doe 2 and Doe 3 v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA.

This case involves an appeal from a trial court's summary judgment in favor of National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, concerning a coverage dispute. The insureds, identified as Doe #1, Doe #2, and Doe #3, sought coverage under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy for claims of sexual misconduct. National Union argued that an endorsement (MS #2) replaced the policy's original exclusions with new ones, specifically excluding liability from conduct of a sexual nature. The insureds contended the endorsement's exclusions were ambiguous and only applied to clergy counseling professional liability coverage. The Court of Appeals found the language of the MS #2 endorsement ambiguous, thus reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Insurance CoverageCommercial General LiabilityPolicy ExclusionsAmbiguitySummary JudgmentSexual MisconductClergy CounselingAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 54 United Paperworkers International Union

Local 54 United Paperworkers International Union appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found the union liable for unemployment insurance contributions for payments made to its officers engaging in union activities during work hours. The union contended that its officers were not employees and that New York's unemployment insurance laws were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship, citing expense reimbursements, tax withholdings, and W-2 form issuances by the union. Furthermore, the court ruled that the National Labor Relations Act did not preempt the state's unemployment insurance statute, categorizing the union's preemption argument as a peripheral concern to the federal act, while upholding state authority over unemployment compensation programs. Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployee-Employer RelationshipUnion OfficersPreemptionNational Labor Relations ActState LawCompensationWorkers' Compensation BoardDisability Benefits LawNew York
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.M. Perlman Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

This case involves R.M. Perlman, d/b/a Rebecca Moses Collection (RMC), a garment industry employer, suing two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union. The suit stemmed from picketing aimed at compelling RMC to enter into a Hazantown Agreement, which RMC alleged involved violence and caused substantial losses. The amended complaint included federal claims under the National Labor Relations Act and state law claims such as prima facie tort, intentional interference with contractual relations, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims, arguing federal preemption and RMC's failure to meet New York's specific pleading requirements for actions against unincorporated associations. The court found the state law claims were not preempted due to allegations of violent picketing, aligning with exceptions to federal preemption. However, the court ultimately granted the dismissal of the state law claims (counts two through seven) because RMC failed to allege that every single union member authorized or ratified the violent acts, as required by the New York Court of Appeals decision in Martin v. Curran. Additionally, the individual defendants Byer and Mazur were dismissed because the remaining federal claim under the Labor-Management Relations Act does not allow for individual liability. A motion to dismiss Rebecca Moses as a plaintiff was denied, pending further evidence on her standing. Plaintiffs were granted thirty days to replead the dismissed state law claims.

Labor LawFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsUnincorporated AssociationsUnion LiabilityViolent PicketingHazantown AgreementMotion to DismissNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 7,083 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