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

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Carter

This appeal concerns a declaratory judgment suit initiated by an unnamed workers' compensation insurance company, referred to as the appellant. The appellant challenged a trial court's ruling that denied its subrogation rights against any recovery made by Johnny Carter from Temple-Inland Forest Products Corporation. Johnny Carter, an employee of Biskamp Electric Company, Inc., sustained injuries at a Temple-Inland plant and received workers' compensation benefits, subsequently filing a third-party action against Temple-Inland. The core issue on appeal was whether the waiver of subrogation endorsement in the insurance policy applied to Temple-Inland Forest Products Corporation, despite variations in naming. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of waiver and affirmed the decision.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverInsurance Policy InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyContract ConstructionTexas LawEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Johnson & Higgins

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Johnson & Higgins (J&H) over a mandatory pre-65 retirement policy that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court previously found J&H liable and issued an injunction. J&H then sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for monetary and injunctive relief based on waivers signed by thirteen retired employee-directors, who had received $1,000 in exchange for waiving ADEA rights. The retired directors later repudiated these waivers, citing conflict of interest, economic duress, and undue influence. The EEOC opposed the waivers, arguing inadequate consideration, lack of voluntariness, and that J&H negotiated them without EEOC participation after a finding of liability. The District Court denied J&H's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration and the voluntariness of the waivers. The court also held that waivers entered into after a finding of liability and without EEOC participation are invalid as a matter of law.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEAWaiversSummary JudgmentKnowing and VoluntaryConsiderationOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActOWBPARepudiation of WaiversEEOC Litigation
References
16
Case No. 14-03-00629-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2004

Trinity Universal Insurance Company v. Yolanda Berryhill

This case involves an appeal by Trinity Universal Insurance Company ('Trinity') from a judgment in favor of Yolanda Berryhill ('Berryhill') in a workers' compensation dispute. Trinity sought judicial review of a commission decision awarding benefits to Berryhill. The core issue was whether Trinity waived its right to contest the compensability of Berryhill's injury by failing to file its notice of refusal within seven days of receiving her injury notice, as per the Continental Casualty Co. v. Downs ruling. The trial court granted Berryhill's motion for partial summary judgment on this waiver issue. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that the 'Downs waiver' issue could not be raised for the first time during judicial review, as it was not decided by the commission appeals panel, and the Act contains no 'good cause' exception for introducing new issues at this stage.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewWaiverCompensabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationLabour LawTimely NoticeInsurance Carrier
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Risk Funding Insurance Co. Ex Rel. Continental Casualty Co. v. Lambert

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment concerning a workers' compensation carrier's waiver of subrogation rights. Larry Lambert, Rogers Patino, and Andres Garcia (appellees), employees of U.S. Contractors, Inc., were injured in a chemical plant explosion and settled with third-party defendants (Memc Pasadena, Inc., J.E. Merit Contractors, Inc., and Albemarle Corporation) for $1.8 million. American Risk Funding Insurance Company (appellant), the workers' compensation carrier for U.S. Contractors, Inc., intervened to seek reimbursement for benefits paid, but Lambert denied the claim due to a prior contract waiving subrogation rights. The trial court granted Lambert's motion for summary judgment, which American Risk Funding appealed. The appellate court addressed five issues raised by the appellant, primarily concerning the validity and scope of the subrogation waiver, including arguments about public policy, lack of consideration, intent to benefit appellees, waiver of future benefits, and common law conversion. The court systematically overruled all of appellant's issues, concluding that the waiver of subrogation does not violate public policy, does not require separate consideration, was intended to apply as contracted, waives rights to future credits, and extinguishes common law claims related to subrogation. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court affirming the summary judgment in favor of Lambert was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverSummary Judgment AppealPublic PolicyContract LawTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsEmployee RightsThird-Party LiabilityReimbursement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1999

Forbes v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which denied National Restoration Contractors’ (NRC) motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by the New York City School Construction Authority (NYCSCA). The central issue revolved around the applicability of a waiver of subrogation endorsement within a commercial general liability insurance policy, procured by NYCSCA and covering subcontractors like NRC, issued by AIU Insurance Company. The policy excluded bodily injury to employees covered by workers’ compensation, which NRC separately maintained. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, concluding that the waiver of subrogation endorsement did not bar the third-party complaint. The court reasoned that the endorsement’s scope was limited to claims covered under the policy, and since NRC’s employee injuries were not covered by the AIU policy, the waiver was inapplicable.

Summary JudgmentWaiver of SubrogationThird-Party ComplaintInsurance PolicyCommercial General LiabilityWorkers' CompensationAnti-Subrogation RuleContractual IndemnityAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bluitt v. Eval Co. of America, Inc.

Plaintiff Eartha L. Bluitt sued her former employer, Eval Company of America (EVALCA), under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), alleging wrongful termination. EVALCA moved for summary judgment, arguing Bluitt had waived her claims by signing a "Settlement Agreement and General Release" related to a prior Title VII sexual harassment lawsuit. The Court addressed whether FMLA rights could be waived, citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(d) which states employees cannot waive FMLA rights. Applying the Chevron analysis, the Court found that Congress had not directly spoken on the waiver issue in the FMLA, and section 105 of the FMLA provided support for the agency’s regulation. Therefore, the Court upheld the validity of the FMLA regulation prohibiting waivers, concluding that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding the waiver's validity, and denied EVALCA's motion for summary judgment.

FMLAWorker's CompensationSummary JudgmentWaiver of RightsEmployment LawRetaliationFederal QuestionBreach of ContractStatutory InterpretationChevron Deference
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston General Insurance Co. v. Association Casualty Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal stemming from a dispute between two workers' compensation insurance carriers, Houston General Insurance Company (Appellant) and Association Casualty Insurance Company (Appellee), regarding which carrier is obligated to pay compensation benefits to an injured employee, Johnnie Featherston, of Mallory Propane, Inc. Houston General initially paid the benefits and then sought judicial review after adverse administrative rulings. The core issue is whether Houston General waived its right to contest coverage by not disputing the claim within 60 days, as per Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 409.021(c). Houston General argued that the issue was "coverage" rather than "compensability" and that waiver and estoppel do not create an insurance contract where none existed. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Association Casualty. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that the issue was one of coverage, not compensability, and that waiver or estoppel could not extend coverage. However, the appellate court also denied Houston General's motion for summary judgment regarding equitable subrogation due to a need for a balancing of equities. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CarriersCoverage DisputeWaiverEstoppelEquitable SubrogationSummary JudgmentTexas LawAppellate ReviewRemand
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vince Poscente International, Inc., Vince Poscente, and Michelle Poscente v. Compass Bank

This case is an appeal following a summary judgment granted in favor of Compass Bank against Vince Poscente International, Inc., Vince Poscente, and Michelle Poscente (the Poscentes). Previously, a summary judgment for Compass was reversed due to an insufficient affidavit. On remand, Compass presented new affidavits to establish the outstanding debt on a promissory note and guaranties. The Poscentes appealed, raising five issues including disputes over the amount owed, the lack of an original promissory note, alleged lack of evidentiary support for Compass's claims, the enforceability of guaranties with homestead waiver provisions, and conflicting choice of law clauses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding the Poscentes' arguments lacked merit, concluding that the homestead waiver was severable and no conflict of laws issue was properly raised.

Summary JudgmentPromissory NoteGuaranty AgreementAffidavit SufficiencyLaw of the CaseSeverability ClauseHomestead WaiverChoice of LawTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gus H. Comiskey, III A/K/A Trey Comiskey and TC3, Inc. v. FH Partners, LLC

This appeal concerns a dispute over the enforcement of a cross-collateralization clause in a loan agreement. Appellants Gus H. Comiskey, III and TC3, Inc. challenged a directed verdict that found FH Partners did not breach its contract. Comiskey, though not an original party, signed an extension of a $900,000 note secured by the "Burkhart property" from 1st Choice Bank (predecessor to FH Partners). The core issue was whether the cross-collateralization clause, which secured other debts of Paul Gomberg (original debtor) with the Burkhart property, remained enforceable. The trial court had ruled the agreement unambiguously permitted enforcement. The appellate court reversed the directed verdict on the appellants' waiver claim, finding a factual issue existed based on alleged statements, payoff quotes, and silence regarding the clause, which suggested an intention to waive the right. However, the court affirmed the remainder of the judgment, rejecting claims of mutual mistake, estoppel, and fraud due to Comiskey's failure to exercise reasonable diligence. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the waiver claim and attorney's fees.

Contract DisputeCross-Collateralization ClauseLoan AgreementWaiverPromissory EstoppelEquitable EstoppelQuasi-EstoppelFraudulent ConcealmentDeclaratory JudgmentDirected Verdict
References
66
Case No. No. 08-19-00272-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2021

Max Grossman/City of El Paso v. City of El Paso/Max Grossman

This case involves an appeal from the 384th District Court of El Paso County, Texas, regarding a dispute over the City of El Paso's plan to build a multipurpose arena. Appellant Max Grossman challenged the project, particularly the demolition of buildings in the Duranguito neighborhood for the arena's footprint, citing violations of the Texas Antiquities Code. The litigation's progression included multiple lawsuits concerning bond validity, sovereign immunity of the City, and the legality of permits issued by the Texas Historical Commission (THC). The primary legal issues revolve around the waiver of governmental immunity for the City under the Antiquities Code and whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a temporary injunction against the project. Grossman contended the City's archeological survey design was inadequate to protect potential Mescalero Apache "Peace Camp" artifacts. The dissent argues against the majority's implicit finding of immunity waiver and supports the trial court's denial of the temporary injunction, emphasizing that the Antiquities Code does not unambiguously waive governmental immunity and and that the THC has broad discretion in approving archeological survey plans.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityTexas Antiquities CodeArcheological SurveyTemporary InjunctionUltra Vires ClaimBond ReferendumEl Paso Arena ProjectHistorical PreservationJudicial Discretion
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 12,353 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