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

Universe Life Insurance v. Giles

Justice Hecht's concurring opinion addresses the complex issues surrounding insurance bad-faith liability in Texas. He critiques the existing 'no reasonable basis' standard for its difficulty in appellate review, particularly due to the limitations of no-evidence review which prevents weighing conflicting evidence. He advocates for defining bad faith as 'unscrupulous, arbitrary conduct' and for treating the 'reasonably clear' liability standard as a legal question rather than a factual one. This approach, he argues, would provide clearer guidelines for insurers and enable meaningful judicial review, preventing juries from arbitrarily defining bad faith. Furthermore, he emphasizes that the requisite mental state for bad-faith liability should involve intentional or reckless conduct, not mere negligence. He concurs with the judgment that Universe Life wrongfully delayed Giles' claim (thus implying the claim for benefits was granted) but finds no evidence for punitive damages.

Insurance bad faithTexas lawtort liabilitycontractual disputesappellate reviewevidentiary standardsjudicial roleinsurer conductdamagespunitive damages
References
152
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01050 [191 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2021

Matter of Faith A. M. (Faith M.)

The mother, Faith M., appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which found her to have derivatively neglected her child, Faith A.M. This finding stemmed from a prior neglect determination in May 2014 concerning her other children due to excessive corporal punishment, which the court deemed proximate in time to the current proceeding. The evidence presented, including statements from siblings, testimony from a school counselor, and observations of injuries, corroborated the ongoing use of excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's assessment of the mother's credibility, finding her denials incredible, was supported by the record, reinforced by her guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to similar allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, as the mother failed to provide evidence that the circumstances leading to the neglect finding no longer existed.

Child NeglectDerivative NeglectCorporal PunishmentFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewParental JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceCredibilityPrior FindingsRisk of Harm
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maryland Insurance Co. v. Head Industrial Coatings & Services, Inc.

This is an appeal in a bad faith insurance case involving Head Industrial Coatings and Services, Inc. (Head) and Maryland Insurance Company (Maryland). Head sued Maryland for denying a contractual liability claim, which was missing from its policy due to an agent's clerical error. The appellate court upheld the cause of action for bad faith, ruling that the agent's knowledge was imputable to Maryland, making the conduct knowingly wrongful. However, the court reduced Head's damage award to policy limits and reversed a statutory penalty. The case also involves a third-party action by Maryland against Gans & Smith Insurance Agency, which was remanded for a new trial due to issues with the jury's finding on breach of fiduciary duty.

Bad Faith InsuranceInsurance Code ViolationsContractual LiabilityAgent ErrorClerical ErrorIndemnity AgreementUnfair Claims Settlement PracticesDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingImputed KnowledgeDamages Calculation
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rangel v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Lorenzo Rangel appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company regarding his bad faith claim. Rangel alleged Hartford delayed workers' compensation payments following a job-related accident in May 1988, with payments ceasing in October 1988 and resuming in February 1989 after an Industrial Accident Board (IAB) conference. The underlying compensation claim was settled for $29,000, and the Compromise Settlement Agreement (CSA), approved by the IAB, noted that the carrier's liability or extent of injury was uncertain. Hartford successfully moved for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel, arguing Rangel was precluded from relitigating the issue of uncertainty. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the IAB's finding of uncertainty of liability provided a reasonable basis for Hartford's delay in payments, thus defeating Rangel's bad faith claim.

Workers' CompensationBad Faith ClaimDelay in PaymentSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionCompromise Settlement AgreementTexas Industrial Accident BoardReasonable Basis for DelayUncertainty of Liability
References
12
Case No. 05-20-00859-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2022

Full of Faith Christian Center, Inc., Full of Faith Christian Center Ministries, Full of Faith Christian Center Ministries, Inc., Calvin Ray Calhoun, and Peggy Calhoun v. Kenneth May & Desire Ophelia Fuentes-May

Kenneth May and Desire Ophelia Fuentes-May (Appellees) sued Full of Faith Christian Center, Inc. and related entities/individuals (Appellants) for nuisance, trespass, negligence, and unlawful diversion of water. A no-answer default judgment was entered against Appellants. Appellants challenged the default judgment, raising issues with citation, substituted service, and an unserved supplemental petition, among others. The appellate court found service and citation were not defective and upheld the denial of the motion for new trial on most grounds. However, the court reversed the award of punitive damages against appellants jointly and severally, remanding for a new trial solely on exemplary damages, and affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

Default JudgmentService of ProcessSubstituted ServicePunitive DamagesJoint and Several LiabilityMotion for New TrialAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureNuisanceTrespass
References
33
Case No. ADJ11080934
Regular
Oct 28, 2025

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. CREAM OF THE CROP AG SERVICE, INC.; CA FARM MANAGEMENT, INC.

The applicant, Juan Martinez, sought reconsideration of a prior decision that reversed a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order imposing sanctions against the defendant for alleged frivolous tactics. The Appeals Board originally found insufficient evidence of bad-faith conduct by the defendant, Cream of the Crop AG Service, Inc. and CA Farm Management, Inc. In this petition, the applicant sought clarification on the standard of review and claimed certain issues were not addressed. The Board denied the applicant's petition, reiterating its finding that the defendant's actions did not constitute bad-faith litigation tactics under Labor Code section 5813, and confirmed that the responsibility for pursuing discovery, such as a neuropsychological evaluation recommended by Dr. Bhatia in 2018, did not rest solely on the defendant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5813SanctionsAttorneys' FeesFrivolous TacticsBad Faith ConductNeuropsychology EvaluationAdditional PanelsReconsideration Proceedings
References
13
Case No. OAK 0295096
Regular
Sep 14, 2007

DAVID JONES vs. CSAA and ACE/ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order that denied sanctions against defense counsel. The applicant's attorney sought sanctions based on allegations of bad faith tactics in resisting a deposition fee and in subsequent payment negotiations, arguing the defense repeated arguments previously rejected in a similar case. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found no new evidence and maintained that the defense's actions did not rise to the level of bad faith warranting sanctions.

WCABReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code §5813Bad Faith TacticsDeposition FeePeden v. Lockheed MartinLabor Code §5710Attorney's FeesStanding
References
1
Case No. ADJ10269827, ADJ10270738
Regular
Jun 04, 2018

OVIDIO SANCHEZ vs. COBRA ENGINEERING INC, THE HARTFORD

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration after their request for costs and sanctions was denied by the WCJ. The lien claimant argued the defendant engaged in bad-faith tactics by failing to timely pay for interpreter services and object to the invoice. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant's prompt payment after receiving the petition for sanctions demonstrated an intent to pay, not willful bad faith. The defendant's payment of the invoice, including penalties and interest, also mitigated the claim for sanctions under Labor Code section 5813.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantPetition for SanctionsLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Bad FaithInterpreter ServicesRule 9795.460-Day Rule
References
1
Case No. ADJ7977732, ADJ8044285, ADJ8044807
Regular
Nov 07, 2014

OSCAR ALVAREZ vs. EBUS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board withdrew a Notice of Intention to Issue Sanctions against lien claimant Mednet, Inc. and its representative, Michael Goldberg. Initially, sanctions were considered for filing a skeletal, unverified Petition for Reconsideration and failing to appear at a lien conference, deemed bad faith actions causing delay. However, after Mednet explained the actions as an "honest mistake" due to lack of experience and apologized, the Board found the petition was not filed in bad faith or as a frivolous tactic. Mednet was admonished to familiarize itself with Appeals Board rules regarding liens and filings, but sanctions were ultimately withdrawn.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalNotice of Intention to Issue SanctionsLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionNon-Final OrderLien ConferenceBad Faith Actions
References
4
Case No. ADJ954867 (SFO 0497953)
Regular
Dec 29, 2008

HERBERT BARRIOS vs. DEEP VAC, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board partially granted reconsideration, rescinding the award of attorney's fees for frivolous tactics but affirming the award for expert witness costs and a penalty for unreasonable refusal to pay. The Board found that while SCIF's refusal to pay for the diminished future earnings capacity expert was unreasonable, their actions did not rise to the level of bad faith or frivolous conduct required for sanctions. A dissenting opinion argued to affirm the original award of sanctions, finding SCIF's actions to be unreasonable and in bad faith based on prior unfavorable decisions and testimony from SCIF's claims adjustor.

Diminished Future Earnings CapacityVocational RehabilitationLabor Code section 5811Labor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5813Expert Witness FeesReconsiderationFindings and AwardSanctionsBad Faith Tactics
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,266 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