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

Lunn v. Silfies

Plaintiffs sued defendants to recover the remaining balance for services and materials provided for home repairs in Olean, New York. The total claim was $8,014.86, with $4,069.02 already paid, leaving a balance of $3,945.84. Defendants argued that the repairs were not performed in a good and workmanlike manner, despite no formal written contract existing beyond an employee's estimate. The court, presided over by Edward M. Horey, J., found that New York law implies a duty of workmanlike performance for skilled work. The court determined that plaintiffs' employees were deficient in repairs to the kitchen floor, closet door, back entrance door, and kitchen soffit. Applying the measure of damages as the market price to correct the remediable defects, the court awarded defendants $1,850 in damages. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs for a reduced sum of $2,095.84.

Contract DisputeWorkmanlike PerformanceBreach of ContractImplied DutyConstruction DefectsDamages CalculationRemedial WorkNegligenceRenovation DisputeResidential Construction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1960

Gale v. Spriggs

This case involves an appeal concerning a breach of a written construction contract for a home addition. Plaintiffs, Spriggs and his wife, sued the building contractor for failing to perform in a good and workmanlike manner, leading to a depreciation in their home's value. A jury initially awarded the plaintiffs $4200, including $1500 in exemplary damages for malice. The contractor appealed, challenging the discovery process, the exemplary damages award, and a special issue submission. The appellate court affirmed the findings of poor workmanship but reversed the award for exemplary damages, concluding there was no evidence of malice. Consequently, the judgment was reformed, reducing the total award to $2700.

Breach of contractConstruction defectExemplary damagesMaliceProperty valueAppellate reviewJury verdictDiscoveryCivil procedureTexas law
References
13
Case No. 02-10-00157-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2011

Lesikar Oil and Gas Co. v. Legend Swabbing, LLC

Lesikar Oil and Gas Co. appealed a trial court's judgment favoring Legend Swabbing, LLC in a breach of contract dispute. Legend was hired to repair a casing leak in Lesikar's well and performed three squeeze jobs. Lesikar refused to pay, alleging Legend's subcontractors were liable for failures and that Legend did not perform in a good and workmanlike manner. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence supported Legend's full performance and that the findings regarding subcontractor liability and well circulation were not erroneous. The court also found Lesikar's challenges to specific findings of fact immaterial.

Breach of contractOil and gas wellCasing leak repairSubcontractor liabilityAppellate judgmentTrial court findingsSufficiency of evidenceGood and workmanlike performanceMemorandum opinionTexas law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. N. V. Koninklyke Neder-Landsche Stoomboot Maatschappij

This case, heard by District Judge Singleton, involves plaintiff Dallas F. Martin, a longshoreman, who sustained an injury on November 15, 1961, while working on the M/S OSIRIS in Houston, Texas. Martin sued the vessel's owner and operator, N. V. Koninklyke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, alleging unseaworthiness and negligence. The court found that the method of stowage, the ship, and its equipment were all safe and seaworthy, and that the shipowner was not negligent. Furthermore, the third-party defendant, Strachan Shipping Company, the stevedoring contractor, was found to have performed its services in a careful and workmanlike manner. Consequently, the court denied Martin's claim for damages against the shipowner, and also denied the recoupment claim by Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, the workers' compensation carrier.

LongshoremanMaritime LawPersonal InjuryNegligenceUnseaworthinessStevedoringThird-Party ClaimWorkers' CompensationIndemnityDistrict Court
References
1
Case No. 01-06-00458-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2007

David C. Hickman v. Royce Dudensing

David Hickman appealed an adverse take-nothing judgment on a jury verdict in a construction-defect case against Royce Dudensing. Hickman sued Dudensing for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) and breach of contract, alleging that Dudensing failed to remodel Hickman’s residence in a good and workmanlike manner. The trial court instructed a verdict on the DTPA claims based on limitations but allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed. The jury found that Dudensing did not fail to comply with his contract obligations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict and concluding that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict on the DTPA claims due to the statute of limitations.

Construction defectBreach of contractDeceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)Statute of limitationsLegal sufficiencyFactual sufficiencyQuasi-admissionsJudicial admissionsJury verdictAppellate review
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Insurance Company a/s/o Robert and Joanie Emerson v. Martin Edward Winters, d/b/a Winters Roofing Company

The defendant contractor, Martin Winters of Winters Roofing Company, entered an agreement to replace a roof for homeowners Robert and Joanie Emerson. After the newly installed roof developed leaks, a subcontractor hired by Winters to make repairs caused a fire, resulting in over $871,069 in damages. Federal Insurance Company, as subrogor to the Emersons' rights, sued Winters for negligence and breach of contract. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendant, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. This Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, holding that the defendant had an implied non-delegable contractual duty to perform the roofing services in a careful, skillful, diligent, and workmanlike manner, a duty which was not discharged by delegating the work to a subcontractor. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Contract LawNon-delegable DutySubcontractor LiabilityBreach of ContractImplied DutyWorkmanlike MannerConstruction ContractsRoofing ServicesSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
46
Case No. 06-10-00100-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2011

David Len Moulton v. State

David Len Moulton was convicted of murdering his wife, Rebecca Moulton, and sentenced to sixty years' imprisonment. The conviction was appealed on several grounds, including an erroneous jury charge. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana found that the trial court's jury charge, which included "asphyxiation by manner and means unknown" when the manner and means were "unknowable" (i.e., multiple known options were presented by evidence), was erroneous. The court determined this error caused "some harm" to Moulton, especially considering the State's closing argument focused on the "manner and means unknown" allegation coupled with suffocation testimony. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Criminal AppealJury Charge ErrorAsphyxiationManner and Means UnknownHomicideMedical Examiner TestimonyAutopsy ReportDomestic ViolenceEvidence SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
58
Case No. NO. 2-07-150-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2008

I Gotcha, Inc., D/B/A Illusions v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission

I Gotcha, Inc., operating as Illusions, appealed a trial court's judgment that upheld a $13,500 civil penalty imposed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC). The penalty resulted from a TABC investigation where a dancer at Illusions allegedly solicited TABC agents for sexual purposes. Illusions contended that the dancer was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that a single incident was insufficient to justify a 'place or manner' violation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the administrative law judge's conclusions that the dancer was an employee and that the solicitation occurred. The court also upheld the finding of a 'place or manner' violation, citing the current incident and Illusions's prior Code violations, and found no abuse of discretion in the penalty assessment.

Alcoholic Beverage Code ViolationsCivil PenaltyAdministrative ReviewSubstantial Evidence RuleEmployee vs. Independent ContractorSolicitation for Immoral PurposesPublic DecencyPermit SuspensionAbuse of DiscretionTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. 14-16-00686-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2018

Scott Van Dyke v. Builders West, Inc.

Scott Van Dyke appealed a final judgment favoring Builders West, Inc. Builders West had sued Van Dyke for breach of contract due to nonpayment on a home renovation, while Van Dyke counter-sued for overcharging and faulty work. A jury found for Builders West, awarding significant damages and attorney's fees. Van Dyke's appeal challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding good and workmanlike performance, the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on supervision, and the attorney's fee rate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding that the jury charge did not require proof of good and workmanlike performance, Van Dyke waived his second issue, and Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not limit attorney's fees to amounts actually incurred when found reasonable and necessary.

breach of contracthome renovationattorney feesappellate reviewsufficiency of evidencejury chargeimplied warrantyquantum meruitsubstantial performanceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Council on Compensation Insurance v. Gaddis

Shoney's appealed a chancery court judgment that reversed a commissioner's determination, which had found Shoney's eligible for inclusion in an "assigned risk pool" on a guaranteed cost basis. The core dispute centered on whether Shoney's inability to secure workers' compensation insurance on a guaranteed cost basis, despite offers of retrospective premium plans, constituted an inability to obtain insurance "in the regular manner" making them eligible for the assigned risk plan. The chancery court concluded that Shoney's had insurance available on the open market and was thus ineligible. However, the appellate court determined that the commissioner, as the administrative agency, failed to make adequate findings of fact on the critical issue of what constitutes obtaining insurance "in the regular manner." Consequently, the case was remanded to the Chancery Court of Davidson County, with instructions to further remand the case to the commissioner, requiring proper findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.

Workers' CompensationAssigned Risk PlanInsurance EligibilityRetrospective PremiumGuaranteed Cost PremiumAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewFindings of FactRemandRating System
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 155 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