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. ADJ6644580
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

EVER GONZALEZ vs. PLUS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, CHARTIS COSTA MESA On Behalf Of GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a worker injured on January 26, 2009, alleging employment by Plus International Corporation. The trial judge found the worker was employed by a subcontractor, Santos, who was unlicensed and uninsured. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the trial judge's finding. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to develop evidence on whether the applicant was a roofer and if the project's total cost required a contractor's license. The Board noted that if a license was required, the subcontractor's lack of insurance would automatically render them unlicensed.

Labor Code section 2750.5Blew v. Hornerunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorpresumption of employmentrooferspecialty contractorClass C-39 licenseaggregate contract priceautomatic suspension of license
References
3
Case No. M2018-02183-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2020

Jose Sifuentes, D/B/A Jose's Electric v. D.E.C., LLC

A subcontractor, Jose Sifuentes, sued general contractor D.E.C., LLC, for unpaid work on a bowling alley project. The trial court initially dismissed all claims, including breach of contract and quantum meruit, due to Sifuentes being an unlicensed contractor, citing Tennessee Code Annotated § 62-6-103(b). On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and promissory fraud claims. However, it reversed the dismissal of the quantum meruit claim, clarifying that Tennessee law limits an unlicensed contractor's recovery to actual documented expenses but does not abolish the common law remedy itself when dealing with another professional. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the quantum meruit claim.

Subcontractor disputecontract lawquantum meruitpromissory fraudstatutory interpretationcontractor licensingTennessee appealssummary judgmentdamages limitationcivil procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2000

New York State Thruway Authority v. CBE Contracting Corp.

This case involves an indemnification action initiated by the owner of a construction project, the New York State Thruway Authority, against a subcontractor. The action arose from personal injuries sustained by a laborer. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and this decision was subsequently affirmed. The defendant's contention that the amendment substituting the New York State Thruway Authority as plaintiff violated due process was rejected by the court. Furthermore, the court found no genuine issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's supervisory control, determining that the laborer was a special employee of the defendant and that the defendant was judicially estopped from asserting otherwise due to a prior action where it successfully argued exclusive control.

Construction accidentIndemnificationSummary judgmentDue processStandingSpecial employeeJudicial estoppelScaffold collapsePersonal injurySubcontractor negligence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.G.M. Insulation, Inc. v. Gardner

R-J Taylor General Contractors, Inc. and its subcontractors challenged a determination by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Public Work, which found their fire station construction project subject to prevailing wage requirements under Labor Law § 220. The Bureau concluded that the Bath Volunteer Fire Department (BVFD), despite being a not-for-profit corporation, functioned as a municipal department, and the fire station construction was a public work project. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge this determination. The court affirmed the Department of Labor's finding, concluding there was substantial evidence that BVFD was the functional equivalent of a municipal corporation and that the project served a public benefit. Consequently, the prevailing wage requirements were applicable, and the petition was dismissed.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Work ProjectMunicipal CorporationFire Protection ServicesNot-for-Profit CorporationLabor Law § 220CPLR Article 78Functional EquivalencyState Environmental Quality Review ActConstruction Contract
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aluminum Co. of America v. Commercial Contracting Co. of San Antonio

Alcoa sued Commercial Contracting Co. based on an indemnity clause in their contract, seeking to recover a $6,000 settlement paid to Bobby G. Holloway and associated legal fees. Holloway, a subcontractor's employee, was injured at Alcoa's plant due to what Alcoa alleged was negligence by Commercial's subcontractor or by an Alcoa employee who was a 'borrowed servant' of the subcontractor. The jury found that the subcontractor's employees were not negligent and that Alcoa's employees were not borrowed servants. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings that Alcoa's employees were not borrowed servants and that negligence was not conclusively established against the subcontractor.

Indemnity ContractBorrowed EmployeeEmployer NegligenceSubcontractor NegligenceProximate CausationJury FindingsAppellate AffirmationContractual LiabilityPersonal Injury LitigationWorkmen's Compensation Settlement
References
10
Case No. 01-02-01007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Sheldon A. Etie v. Walsh & Albert Co., Inc

This case addresses the interpretation of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act regarding the scope of statutory employer/employee status and immunity from suit for subcontractors. The appellant, Sheldon A. Etie, was injured by an employee of Walsh & Albert Company, Ltd., a lower-tier subcontractor, while working on a construction site. Etie received workers' compensation benefits but also filed a negligence suit against Walsh & Albert. The central question was whether the general contractor's workers' compensation policy, which covered all subcontractors and their employees, extended immunity to lower-tier subcontractors. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the statutory employer/employee relationship and subsequent immunity from suit extend throughout all tiers of subcontractors when covered by a single workers' compensation insurance policy provided by the general contractor.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityStatutory Employer DoctrineSubcontractor CoverageExclusive Remedy ProvisionFellow Servant ImmunitySummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code InterpretationConstruction Site InjuryTiered Subcontractor LiabilityIndependent Contractor Status
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Corpus Christi v. Acme Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

Amber Electric Company and Acme Mechanical Contractors, Incorporated, subcontractors, sued the City of Corpus Christi, the owner of a public building project, after the prime contractor, La Man Construction, abandoned the project and its payment bond was discovered to be fraudulent. The subcontractors sought recovery from the City on theories of quantum meruit, governmental taking without compensation, and the City's breach of a statutory duty by negligently approving a bogus payment bond. The trial court found in favor of the subcontractors. On appeal, the court reversed and rendered judgment against the subcontractors on the governmental taking and breach of statutory duty claims, finding no compensable claim or statutory liability against the City. The quantum meruit claim was reversed and remanded for a new trial, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the City was reasonably notified that the subcontractors expected payment directly from the City.

Quantum MeruitGovernmental TakingStatutory DutyPayment BondSubcontractor LiabilityPrime Contractor DefaultSurety Bond FraudPublic Works ContractConstruction LawNegligence
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Judlau Contracting, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 permits a partially negligent general contractor to enforce an indemnification provision against its subcontractor for damages attributable to the subcontractor's negligence. The plaintiff, Stephen J. Brooks, an ironworker employed by subcontractor Thunderbird Constructors, Inc., sustained injuries and sued the general contractor, Judlau Contracting, Inc. Judlau asserted a third-party claim for contractual indemnification against Thunderbird, which was initially dismissed by lower courts on the grounds that Judlau's partial negligence precluded indemnification under the statute. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute does permit such indemnification as long as the provision does not seek to indemnify the general contractor for its own negligence, but only for that portion attributable to the subcontractor. The court clarified that the phrase 'to the fullest extent permitted by law' limits the subcontractor's obligation to its own negligence, thereby enforcing the indemnification provision and remitting the case for further proceedings.

IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceConstruction AccidentGeneral Obligations LawWorkers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationPartial NegligenceHold Harmless ClauseThird-Party Claim
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. v. Rocco

Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. and Patrick Butler appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment dismissing their complaint for breach of contract. The plaintiff, a licensed home improvement contractor, was fired by the defendants during a renovation project in Nassau County. The defendants claimed the plaintiff used unlicensed subcontractors, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The appellate court dismissed Patrick Butler's appeal but reversed the order for Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. It ruled there was a factual dispute regarding whether the workers hired by the plaintiff were independent contractors requiring licenses or employees exempt under Nassau County Administrative Code, thereby reinstating the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentHome Improvement ContractorsUnlicensed SubcontractorsEmployee-Employer RelationshipAppellate ReviewContract DisputeNassau County Administrative CodeCPLRReinstatement of Complaint
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Republic-Vanguard Insurance Co. v. Mize

This case involves an insurance law coverage dispute arising from the interpretation of an "and/or" clause within a "WORKERS COMPENSATION EXCLUSION" endorsement in a Commercial General Liability Policy. Appellant, Republic-Vanguard Insurance Company, sought a declaratory judgment to determine if it owed a duty to defend or indemnify Appellees, Charlie Mize d/b/a Quality Framing and Doug Settler. Settler, a subcontractor, was injured due to Mize's alleged negligence. The core issue was whether the exclusion applied to subcontractors themselves or only to employees of the insured and employees of any subcontractor. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mize and Settler. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the exclusion unambiguously applied only to employees and not to subcontractors individually, thereby establishing Republic-Vanguard Insurance Company's duty to defend Mize.

Insurance LawCommercial General LiabilityPolicy InterpretationWorkers Compensation ExclusionDuty to DefendDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContract AmbiguityEight Corners RuleSubcontractor Liability
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 633 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