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. 07-05-0386-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2007

Yorkshire Insurance Co. v. Diatom Drilling Co.

Insurers (Yorkshire Insurance Co., Ltd. and Ocean Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Diatom Drilling Co. and Employer’s Contractor Services, Inc. Insurers sought declaratory relief regarding a CGL policy's exclusion of liability for injury or death to "leased-in employees/workers." The case stems from a 1992 accident where Randall Jay Seger, an employee leased by ECS to Diatom, was killed. The appellate court found that the "Excluding Leased-In Employees/Workers" condition unambiguously excludes claims against Diatom/ECS related to such workers. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Diatom and ECS and rendered summary judgment for the Insurers, declaring the exclusion valid. The award of attorney's fees to Diatom and ECS was also reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Insurance policyDeclaratory judgmentSummary judgmentCGL policyLeased employeesWorker injuryCoverage disputePolicy exclusionAttorney's feesAppellate review
References
14
Case No. E2009-01330-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2010

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Dale Penney, d/b/a DLP Construction Co.

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. sued Dale Penney, d/b/a DLP Construction Co., to recover additional workers' compensation insurance premiums. The dispute centered on whether workers utilized by Penney were employees or independent contractors for premium assessment purposes, particularly in light of I-18 "Election of Non-Coverage by Subcontractor" Forms. The trial court ruled in favor of Hartford, finding the workers to be employees and awarding $12,316 plus costs and pre-judgment interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's finding that the workers were employees, thus upholding the premium assessment, but vacated the award of pre-judgment interest and remanded that issue for further clarification from the trial court.

Insurance PremiumsEmployee ClassificationIndependent Contractor StatusI-18 FormsPremium AuditPre-judgment InterestAppellate Court DecisionWorkers' Compensation LawContractual ObligationsTennessee Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Casualty Co. v. Dyess

This case addresses the subrogation rights of a workers' compensation carrier (Employers Casualty Co.) in relation to the employer's uninsured motorist coverage provided by Northbrook Property and Casualty Co. Carl L. Dyess, Jr., an employee, received workers' compensation benefits from Employers after being struck by an uninsured driver, Felipe Mendoza, during his employment. Dyess then sought recovery under his employer's uninsured motorist policy with Northbrook. Employers intervened, asserting statutory, contractual, and equitable subrogation rights for the benefits paid. The trial court granted summary judgment against Employers, ruling its subrogation rights did not extend to uninsured motorist coverage. The appellate court reversed, holding that statutory subrogation rights are not limited to third-party tortfeasors and that policy clauses attempting to abrogate these statutory rights are invalid. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, emphasizing the carrier's right to reimbursement to prevent double recovery by the employee.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation RightsUninsured Motorist CoverageSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationContractual LiabilityEquitable SubrogationInsurance LawTexas LawThird-Party Tortfeasor
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1988

Richiusa v. Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co.

Cologero Richiusa suffered personal injuries at Flushing Truck Repair Co. and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits as an employee of Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co., Inc. Richiusa then initiated a negligence action against both Flushing Truck and Kahn Lumber. The Supreme Court denied both defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court concluding that the workers' compensation award served as an exclusive remedy against Kahn and that Richiusa was a special employee of Flushing Truck, thereby barring the action against both defendants. The complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewNegligenceEmployment StatusStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. 04-14-00622-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2014

Marisela G. Salas, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Martin Suarez and as Next Friend of Keyla Marizel Salas Suares, Minor v. Allen Keller Co. I, L.L.C. D/B/A Allen Keller Co.

This case concerns an appeal of a summary judgment granted in favor of Allen Keller Co., a general contractor, in a negligence lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the estate of Martin Suarez, an employee of subcontractor C&B White Services, Inc., who died after falling from a truck while moving traffic control signs on a TxDOT roadway project. The appellant argued that Allen Keller Co. retained sufficient control over the work to be held liable. The trial court determined that Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code did not apply and granted summary judgment based on common law, finding that Allen Keller Co. did not exercise sufficient control over the specific activity causing the injury and had no actual knowledge of the danger. The appellee's brief asks the appellate court to affirm the trial court's judgment.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityDuty of CareTraffic ControlConstruction AccidentWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
15
Case No. 2020-06-0216
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2020

De Rosa, Debra v. I & MJ Gross Co.

Debra De Rosa, an employee of I & MJ Gross Co., injured her wrist and subsequently sought additional treatment with a new doctor. She contended that the carrier, Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., failed to offer a panel of physicians or inform her of her right to choose from a list of three doctors. However, I & MJ Gross Co. denied these allegations, asserting that it had twice fulfilled its statutory obligation to offer a physician panel. The Court found the employer's testimony credible regarding the panel offer and noted that Ms. De Rosa accepted treatment from Dr. John Weaver. Dr. Weaver ultimately placed her at maximum medical improvement and stated no further treatment was necessary, leading the Court to deny Ms. De Rosa’s request for additional medical care.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentPhysician PanelCredibility DeterminationWrist InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementStatutory ObligationEmployee RightsEmployer ResponsibilityMedical Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Gaedcke Equipment Co.

The plaintiff, Gaedcke Equipment Co., sued its insurance providers, Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York and Continental Insurance Company, after they refused to defend Gaedcke in a prior wrongful discharge lawsuit. This wrongful discharge suit was brought by a former employee who had received workers' compensation benefits. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Gaedcke, ordering the insurers to defend. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, citing Artco-Bell Corp. v. Liberty-Mutual Insurance Co. The court held that the insurance policy's coverage for workers' compensation benefits and bodily injury damages did not extend to liability arising from wrongful discharge claims under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c. Consequently, a take-nothing judgment was entered against Gaedcke Equipment Co. and in favor of the defendant insurance companies.

Insurance CoverageWrongful DischargeWorkers' CompensationDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmployer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1990

Michalak v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a third-party action, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Con Edison) sought common-law and contractual indemnification from Akron Wrecking Co., Inc. (Akron), an employer whose employee, Michalak, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Con Edison. Akron, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment to dismiss Con Edison's third-party complaint. The Supreme Court initially granted Akron's motion, dismissing the complaint entirely without prejudice to contractual indemnification. On appeal, the order was modified. The Appellate Division held that Con Edison, by requiring Akron to name it as an additional insured on primary and excess liability policies, waived its right to common-law indemnification up to the aggregate limits of those policies. Consequently, Akron's motion for summary judgment was granted only to the extent of dismissing claims for common-law indemnification, with the motion otherwise denied.

IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAdditional InsuredWaiver of IndemnityThird-Party ComplaintPersonal Injury Claim
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 13,008 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