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

Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.

This case involves a dispute over an indemnity agreement between Sonat Exploration Company (Sonat) and Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. (Cudd) following an oilfield explosion in Louisiana that killed four Cudd employees. Sonat sought indemnity from Cudd and coverage as an additional insured from Cudd's insurer, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (Lumbermens), after settling claims for approximately $28 million. The core issue is which state's law, Texas or Louisiana, governs the Master Service Agreement's indemnity provisions, as they conflict on enforceability. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' decision to reverse the trial court's application of Texas law and remanded the case for further proceedings under Louisiana law, based on the parties' justified expectations inferred from their contract despite no explicit choice of law for Louisiana operations.

Choice of LawIndemnity AgreementOilfield ServicesMaster Service AgreementLouisiana LawTexas LawContract InterpretationInsurance CoverageRule 11 AgreementVirtual Representation
References
32
Case No. NO. 01-11-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2013

Fairways Offshore Exploration, Inc. v. Patterson Services, Inc. and Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.

Fairways Offshore Exploration, Inc. appealed a trial court's judgment favoring Patterson Services, Inc. and Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. in a negligence and breach of contract dispute stemming from a sour natural gas well incident. Fairways challenged the sufficiency of Patterson's pleadings and expert testimony, damage awards, and asserted Patterson breached an express warranty and Cudd was negligent. Cudd filed a cross-issue regarding its equipment damages. The appellate court modified the judgment to reinstate Cudd's equipment damages, affirmed the judgment for Cudd on breach of contract, reversed Patterson's negligence claim, and reversed and remanded Patterson's breach of contract claim for a new trial.

Sour gas wellNegligenceBreach of contractExpress warrantySulfide-stress crackingNitrogen blanketT95 pipingEquipment rentalDamagesExpert testimony
References
11
Case No. 01-21-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, L.P. v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.

This is an insurance subrogation case where Gemini Insurance Company, on behalf of its insured Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. (Carrizo), sued GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, L.P. (GE) for damages from a well blowout. Carrizo alleged negligence, breach of contract, product liability, and breach of warranty. GE counterclaimed for Carrizo's negligence and indemnification. A jury found both parties negligent, but the trial court later disregarded Carrizo's negligence finding and awarded Carrizo over $2.5 million. On appeal, GE challenged Carrizo's standing, the disregard of the jury's verdict, and the enforceability of indemnity provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding Carrizo had standing, GE failed to provide necessary expert testimony for Carrizo's negligence, and the indemnity clauses were unenforceable due to lack of signatory authority.

Oil and GasWell BlowoutNegligenceBreach of ContractProduct LiabilityBreach of WarrantyInsurance SubrogationIndemnity ClauseFair Notice RuleExpress Negligence
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyde v. North River Insurance

This case examines whether an insurance carrier, having paid no-fault benefits, can assert a lien against a judgment recovered by its insured for pain, suffering, and future economic loss. The plaintiff, an injured insured, received $50,000 in no-fault benefits from North River Insurance Company. In a subsequent tort action against the County of Rensselaer, the plaintiff secured a $1,000,000 verdict. The insurance company filed a lien against this judgment. The Special Term and appellate courts affirmed that the lien was invalid because the jury's verdict explicitly excluded basic economic loss, thereby preventing a double recovery. The decision clarifies that liens are only enforceable against recoveries that duplicate previously paid basic economic losses.

No-Fault BenefitsInsurance LienSummary Judgment AppealPersonal Injury CompensationBasic Economic LossNon-Economic LossPain and Suffering DamagesDouble Recovery PreventionStatutory LienAutomobile Accident
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snively v. Peak Pressure Control, LLC

Plaintiffs Jason Snively, Stephen Clark, and others similarly situated filed a motion for conditional certification against Defendants Peak Pressure Control, LLC and Nine Energy Service, LLC. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically that Pressure Control Operators were not paid overtime wages despite working in excess of 40 hours per week, instead receiving a base salary and bonuses. The court reviewed the motion under the Lusardi two-stage approach and found sufficient evidence that aggrieved and similarly situated individuals exist and desire to opt-in. Consequently, the court granted in part the motion for conditional certification, setting forth directives for a revised notice to potential plaintiffs, including a 60-day opt-in period and approval for notice dissemination via mail, email, and workplace posting.

FLSACollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime WagesWage and HourPressure Control OperatorsOilfield ServicesFair Labor Standards ActEmployer LiabilityMisclassification
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. v. Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc.

This case, a "MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER," addresses a class action brought by L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. and Paul Adams against Community Action Agencies Insurance Group (CAAIG), the Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc. (EOC Nassau), the Economic Opportunity Council of Suffolk County, Inc. (EOC Suffolk), Yonkers Community Action Program, Inc. (Yonkers CAP), and the Estate of John L. Kearse. The plaintiffs alleged various breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA, including the diversion of reserves, failure to adequately fund the plan, failure to collect delinquent contributions, and unjust enrichment. The court found in favor of the defendants on the claims of reserve diversion and unjust enrichment. However, the defendants were found liable for failing to adequately fund the CAAIG Plan, with damages to be determined in a future hearing, and EOC Nassau, Yonkers CAP, and Kearse's Estate were held liable for $9,000 plus interest for failing to collect delinquent contributions from EOC Suffolk.

ERISA Fiduciary DutyEmployee Benefit PlanDelinquent ContributionsUnjust EnrichmentCo-Fiduciary LiabilityTrust Agreement AmendmentsPlan ReservesClass Action LawsuitEastern District CourtPension and Welfare Funds
References
36
Case No. 01-22-00313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

Team Industrial Services, Inc. v. Kelli Most, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse Henson

Kelli Most, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Jesse Henson, sued Team Industrial Services, Inc. for wrongful death and survival claims after Henson died from severe burns sustained in a steam release at a Kansas power plant. Most alleged Team was negligent in servicing pressure relief valves. The jury found Team 90% negligent and Westar (Henson's employer) 10% negligent, awarding Most $222 million in damages. On appeal, Team challenged the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and its refusal to apply Kansas law, which has limits on non-economic damages and different joint and several liability rules. The appellate court found that Kansas law should have been applied for proportionate responsibility and wrongful death damages caps, and that the jury's non-economic damages award was excessive due to improper arguments. The court also determined that all forum non conveniens factors favored dismissal to Kansas, vacating the judgment and dismissing the case.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionNegligence (Corporate)Forum Non ConveniensChoice of Law (Conflicts)Damages CapsComparative NegligenceExcessive DamagesAppellate Court DecisionIndustrial Safety
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MEDICAL ECONOMICS CO. v. Prescribing Reference, Inc.

This memorandum opinion and order addresses Prescribing Reference Incorporated's (PRI) motion for a preliminary injunction against Medical Economics Company and ME Licensing Corporation (MEC). PRI sought to prevent MEC from using the title 'PDR Monthly Prescribing Guide,' alleging trademark infringement and irreparable harm. The Court denied PRI's motion, concluding that PRI did not adequately demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm, noting the lack of concrete evidence for shifting advertising revenue or actual consumer confusion. Furthermore, the Court assessed PRI's likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement claim as weak, considering the descriptive nature of PRI's mark, MEC's use of its well-known 'PDR' house mark, and the sophistication of the target audience, medical professionals.

Preliminary InjunctionTrademark InfringementIrreparable HarmLikelihood of ConfusionDescriptive TrademarksHouse MarksConsumer SophisticationHealthcare PublicationsTrademark StrengthInjunctive Relief
References
27
Case No. 05-CV-3580
Regular Panel Decision

Cantu v. Flanigan

Plaintiff Jose Ramiro Garza Cantu sued defendant Billy R. Flanigan for defamation, leading to a jury award of $38,000,000 in economic damages and $150,000,000 in non-economic damages. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the economic damages but remanded for an explanation regarding the non-economic damages' excessiveness. This court, applying New York law (N.Y. CPLR § 5501(c)), reviewed factors like Cantu's standing, the nature and circulation of the defamatory statements, and their injurious tendency. Despite the award being higher than precedents, the court affirmed the $150,000,000 non-economic damages, noting the severe economic losses, the egregious nature of Flanigan's attempted criminal extortion, and the proportionality to economic damages in similar cases.

DefamationEconomic DamagesNon-Economic DamagesJury AwardExcessiveness of DamagesNew York LawCPLR 5501(c)Second Circuit RemandReputation DamageMental Anguish
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 526 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