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. 01-10-01080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2013

DHL Express (USA), Inc. v. Falcon Express International, Inc.

Falcon Express International (Falcon) sued DHL Express (USA), Inc. (DHL) for rescission of an assignment and assumption agreement and punitive damages, alleging fraud by non-disclosure. Falcon claimed DHL failed to disclose its plans to exit the domestic package delivery market before Falcon assumed a third-party's debt and reseller agreement with DHL. DHL countersued for breach of contract. A jury awarded Falcon $1.7 million in rescission damages and $3.2 million in punitive damages, while awarding $0 to DHL on its counterclaim. DHL appealed, arguing Falcon's fraud claim was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) and Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), and that the $0 damages for its counterclaim were factually insufficient. The Court of Appeals agreed with DHL, reversing the trial court's judgment regarding Falcon's fraud claim and punitive damages, dismissing that claim, and remanding DHL's counterclaim for breach of contract for further proceedings.

Fraudulent InducementNon-disclosureBreach of ContractPreemptionAirline Deregulation ActFederal Aviation Administration Authorization ActAir CarrierMotor CarrierReseller AgreementPunitive Damages
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Express Corp. v. Dutschmann

Marcie Dutschmann, a former Federal Express employee, sued Federal Express for retaliatory discharge and breach of contract. A jury found that Federal Express terminated Dutschmann in retaliation for sexual harassment complaints and failed to exercise good faith in its Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure (GFTP) following her termination. Federal Express appealed the $89,000 judgment, raising five points related to sufficiency of evidence, contract formation from employee handbooks, breach of contract submission, good faith and fair dealing in employment, and attorney’s fees. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for retaliatory discharge and that Federal Express's GFTP created a contractual duty of good faith, which it breached by manipulating the review process.

Retaliatory DischargeSexual HarassmentEmployment ContractEmployee HandbookGood Faith and Fair DealingPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDue ProcessGrievance Procedure
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bluebonnet Express, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau

Bluebonnet Express, Inc. appealed a trial court's judgment in favor of Employers Insurance of Wausau, which had sued on a sworn account to recover disputed insurance premiums. Wausau had sold Bluebonnet twelve insurance policies, converting some to a "retrospective plan D" premium formula where final premiums were adjusted based on actual claims. Bluebonnet filed a proper verified denial, requiring Wausau to prove its claim without a presumption. The appellate court found that Wausau failed to prove that the premiums charged and amounts due were in accordance with the express insurance contracts, which was a vital fact for a suit on a sworn account after a proper denial. The court also clarified procedural rules for raising "no evidence" and "insufficient evidence" points of error in non-jury trials under Tex.R.Civ.P. 324, stating that no predicate motions are required on appeal when timely and informative objections were made in the trial court. Consequently, the court reversed and rendered the judgment, sustaining Bluebonnet's "no evidence" points.

Insurance PremiumsRetrospective Premium PlanSworn AccountAppellate ProcedureNo Evidence PointInsufficient EvidenceNon-Jury TrialTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureContract LawWorkers' Compensation Policy
References
20
Case No. 13-22-00115-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Charles DeRouen, Individually and DeRouen Express Services LLC D/B/A JC Express Services v. Eddie Pridgen, Individually and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC

The appellants, Charles DeRouen (individually) and DeRouen Express Services LLC, appealed a no-answer default judgment in favor of Eddie Pridgen (individually) and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC. The appellate court vacated the trial court's amended default judgment from April 27, 2022, ruling that the trial court's plenary power had expired. The court reversed and remanded the original January 12, 2022 judgment concerning DeRouen individually due to ineffective substitute service. Furthermore, the claims brought by Pridgen Welding LLC were dismissed for lack of standing. However, the court affirmed the January 12, 2022 judgment against DeRouen Express Services LLC in favor of Pridgen, finding that the entity failed to establish a meritorious defense in its motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentSubstitute ServiceDue ProcessCorporate VeilStandingAppellate ProcedurePlenary PowerMotion for New TrialBreach of ContractContractual Dispute
References
47
Case No. E2016-01155-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2016

Aarene Contracting, LLC v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut

This case addresses whether a contractor's notice of violations under the Tennessee Prompt Pay Act, sent via Federal Express and e-mail, met the statutory requirement of registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. Aarene Contracting, LLC sued Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation for unlawfully withholding retainage and failing to establish an escrow account. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Krispy Kreme, finding a lack of strict compliance with the notice provision. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that substantial compliance is sufficient given that Krispy Kreme received actual notice and was not prejudiced. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the appropriate relief for Aarene Contracting, LLC.

Construction LawPrompt Pay ActStatutory InterpretationNotice RequirementsSubstantial ComplianceStrict ComplianceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTennessee LawRetainage
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc.

Appellant Leonardo Rodriguez appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc. in a suit concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rodriguez was injured while working and asserted negligence claims against Lockhart Contracting, arguing he was not an employee of Prime Source, the Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Lockhart Contracting had a co-employment agreement with. The appellate court identified a genuine issue of material fact regarding Rodriguez's employment status with Prime Source, as he had not completed the necessary employment paperwork. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had barred Rodriguez's suit based on the exclusive remedy provision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation DisputeExclusive Remedy DefenseProfessional Employer Organization LiabilityCo-employment RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor Code ComplianceWorkplace Injury ClaimAppellate Review StandardFactual DisputeNegligence Action
References
45
Case No. 03-21-00266-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2022

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Express Limousines, Inc. N/K/A Groovy Automotive I, Inc. And Charles Delmonico

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. appealed a district court's summary judgment granted to Express Limousines, Inc. and Charles Delmonico. Wells Fargo argued the trial court erred in finding their breach of contract claim barred by the statute of limitations. The case originated from a BusinessLine Customer Agreement where Groovy Automotive defaulted on payments and exceeded its credit limit, with the last payment occurring in August 2014. Despite Wells Fargo filing suit in January 2019, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations for breach of contract, which began running from the last payment date, had expired. The court also clarified that an optional acceleration clause, as cited by Wells Fargo, does not alter the accrual date for credit card indebtedness in the context of the statute of limitations.

Breach of ContractStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCredit Card DebtOptional Acceleration ClauseAccrual DateGuarantorTexas Court of AppealsCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chemical Express Carriers, Inc. v. Pina

Oscar Pina sued his employer, Chemical Express, for a work-related injury after its workers' compensation insurance lapsed. Pina alleged negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract for workers' compensation, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful discharge. A jury found in Pina's favor on all counts, but the appellate court found inconsistencies in the theories of recovery. The court reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment for the good faith and fair dealing and gross negligence claims. The common law negligence claim was reversed and remanded for a new trial due to a missing 'sole proximate cause' instruction. However, the $45,000 award for wrongful discrimination and termination was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceGross NegligenceWrongful DischargeBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingJury VerdictAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorSole Proximate Cause
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Case No. W2005-01527-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2006

Steve Mairose v. Federal Express Corporation

This case, an appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County, addresses an alleged breach of an employment contract between Steve Mairose, et al., and Federal Express Corporation. The dispute arose after FedEx's acquisition of Tiger International, leading to an integrated master seniority list for pilots. The appellant pilots argued that their seniority rights, established in the Flight Crewmember Handbook (FCH), were vested and improperly altered by FedEx's bulletin process. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson affirmed the chancery court's decision, ruling that seniority rights are contractual and amendable, not vested, thus FedEx did not breach the FCH. The court also upheld the dismissal of eight plaintiffs who failed to perfect their previous appeal and affirmed the award of discretionary costs to FedEx.

Employment LawContract DisputeSeniority RightsCorporate MergerAppellate ReviewTennessee LawPilot EmploymentArbitrationWaiverCivil Procedure
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 4,181 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