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. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. 07-10-0486-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2011

the City of Lubbock, by and Through the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, as Subrogee v. Lester Payne, Individually and D/B/A Ponderosa Properties and Jarred Pierson and Diana Venice Pierson

A Lubbock police officer, Jarred Pierson, was injured while on duty and received workers' compensation benefits from the City of Lubbock. The City, acting as subrogee, intervened in Pierson's personal injury lawsuit against Ponderosa Apartments, the property owner where the injury occurred. Pierson subsequently non-suited his claims with prejudice, leading Ponderosa to obtain a dismissal of the City's subrogation claims. The City appealed, contending that its statutory subrogation rights should not be extinguished by the employee's voluntary dismissal. The Court of Appeals agreed, emphasizing that once a subrogee's rights are established by payment, they are not defeated by the subrogor's subsequent actions if the tortfeasor knew of the subrogee's claim. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation ClaimDismissal of ClaimsNon-suit with PrejudiceAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier RightsThird-Party LiabilityReal Party in InterestSettlement ImpactRemand for Proceedings
References
21
Case No. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowden v. Texas Catastrophe Property Insurance Ass'n

Ruby Rowden, d/b/a The Aloha Motel, filed suit against Texas Catastrophe Property Insurance Association (TCPIA) in Nueces County, Texas, after sustaining property loss during Hurricane Allen and rejecting TCPIA's settlement offer. TCPIA responded with a Plea to the Jurisdiction, arguing that the case should have been filed in Travis County and that Rowden had not exhausted her administrative remedies under the Texas Catastrophe Property Insurance Pool Act, TEX.INS.CODE ANN. art. 21.49. The trial court dismissed the suit without prejudice. Rowden appealed, contending the trial court had jurisdiction and venue in Nueces County, that the statute's language was permissive, and that her due process rights were violated. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the statutory procedure for review in Travis County was mandatory and jurisdictional, and that Rowden had failed to exhaust administrative remedies and provide proper briefing for all points of error.

Insurance LawJurisdictionAdministrative RemediesStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessProperty InsuranceHurricane AllenTexas Insurance CodeExhaustion of Remedies
References
20
Case No. 03-15-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2015

California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.

The appellants, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA), and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), collectively "Guaranty Associations," are appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee, Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ("Hill Bros."). The suit was filed on March 31, 2009, alleging Hill Bros. failed to reimburse the Guaranty Associations for payments of workers' compensation benefits and claim handling expenses within the deductible limits of a policy issued by the insolvent Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Hill Bros. based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the cause of action accrued on April 1, 2002. The Guaranty Associations argue that the accrual date is incorrect, as their statutory obligations had not been triggered, payments had not been made, and demand for reimbursement had not occurred by that date. They also contend that their compliance with Pennsylvania law (the "Pennsylvania Act") in seeking reimbursement through Legion in Liquidation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for any delay, making reasonableness a fact question. Furthermore, they assert the policy was a continuing contract, and the statute of limitations should not have accrued until full performance on April 28, 2009. Alternatively, they argue that claims for deductible payments made within four years of filing suit (March 31, 2005) are not barred.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty AssociationStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeductible ReimbursementInsolvencyInsurance PolicyContinuing ContractPennsylvania ActTravis County
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1998

Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Southwest Aggregates, Inc.

This appeal addresses an insurer's (Alliance) duty to defend its insured (Southwest Aggregates) in silicosis lawsuits and the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association's (Guaranty Association) obligations after another insurer (ECC) became insolvent. Key issues included whether an insurer's defense duty is pro rata for occurrences spanning multiple policy periods, if the right to a defense must be exhausted against solvent insurers before the Guaranty Association's duty triggers, and the availability of attorney's fees. The court affirmed that an insurer owes a complete, not pro rata, defense and that the right to defense must be exhausted against solvent insurers. However, the court reversed the denial of attorney's fees to the Guaranty Association, holding they are recoverable for a subrogated breach of contract claim.

Insurance LawDuty to DefendPro Rata AllocationExhaustion DoctrineImpaired InsurerGuaranty AssociationSubrogation RightsAttorney's FeesSummary Judgment AppealContract Breach
References
42
Case No. 03-11-00688-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2012

Approach Operating, LLC v. Resolution Oversight Corporation, as Special Deputy Receiver of Financial Insurance Company of America And the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment regarding a workers' compensation carrier's subrogation rights. Appellant Approach Operating, LLC, a general contractor, argued that the carrier had waived its subrogation rights through a Master Service Agreement (MSA) with subcontractor Lilly Construction, Inc. An employee of Lilly, Rodolfo Martinez, was injured and received workers' compensation benefits from Financial Insurance Company of America (FICA) and later The Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA). The district court found no waiver of subrogation and granted summary judgment for FICA and TPCIGA. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the lower court's judgment, emphasizing that explicit contractual language is required for a waiver of subrogation, which was absent in the MSA.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverMaster Service AgreementContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentTexas Court of AppealsInsurance LawOil and Gas IndustryExplicitness RuleThird-Party Claim
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salamone v. Wincaf Properties, Inc.

This case explores the application of CPLR article 16, which limits joint and several liability, to common-law indemnification claims, particularly when a defendant's liability is purely vicarious under Labor Law § 240 (1). Wincaf, a construction site owner, was held vicariously liable for a laborer's injuries and sought full common-law indemnification from subcontractors Bronte and T.O.M.I. Construction, Inc., who were found actually at fault. Bronte argued that CPLR article 16 limited its indemnification liability to its proportionate share of fault (21.75%). The IAS court initially denied Bronte's argument based on CPLR 1602 (2) (ii), which protects indemnification rights, but later reversed itself. This appellate court concluded that CPLR 1602 (2) (ii) preserves common-law indemnification rights entirely, preventing article 16 from limiting a vicariously liable defendant's right to full indemnification from a culpable party, even if that party's fault is less than 50%. The appellate court reversed the IAS court's decision, reinstating Wincaf's right to complete indemnification from Bronte.

Joint and Several LiabilityCPLR Article 16IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Subcontractor LiabilityConstruction AccidentsNoneconomic DamagesStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 8,823 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