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

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. 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

Continental Steel Co. v. H.A. Lott, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding an indemnity agreement between Continental Steel Company (subcontractor) and H.A. Lott, Inc. (general contractor). After a worker's injury led to a negligence lawsuit against Lott, where Lott was found not negligent, Lott sought and was awarded attorneys' fees and costs from Continental based on an indemnity clause. Continental appealed, arguing the clause didn't cover these costs and violated the express negligence doctrine. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the express negligence doctrine was inapplicable since Lott was not found negligent. It concluded that Lott's defense costs were recoverable under the indemnity agreement's broad language, aligning with existing Texas law on contractual indemnity.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence DoctrineContract ConstructionAttorney FeesSubcontractorGeneral ContractorWorkers' CompensationNegligenceTrial CostsAppeal
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State, Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Reynolds-Land, Inc.

This is a summary judgment case where the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (Department) sought indemnity from Reynolds-Land, Inc. (Reynolds-Land) based on a written agreement. An employee of Reynolds-Land, Grover Hicks, was injured and received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA). Hicks then sued the Department for negligence, and TEIA intervened for subrogation. The Department settled with Hicks and TEIA, paying $25,000 to TEIA for its subrogation interest. The Department then filed a third-party action against Reynolds-Land for indemnity for this $25,000 payment. Reynolds-Land moved for summary judgment, arguing the indemnity agreement only covered its own negligence and not the Department's, and that the 'express negligence doctrine' from Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Const. Co. was not met. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against the Department, ruling that the indemnity clause lacked the specificity required by the express negligence doctrine to cover the Department's own alleged negligence.

Indemnity AgreementSummary JudgmentExpress Negligence DoctrineWorkers' CompensationSubrogationContractual InterpretationThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
1
Case No. 13-19-00374-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2021

JNM Express, LLC, ANCA Transport, Inc., Omega Freight Logistics, LLC, Jorge Marin, and Silvia Marin v. Lauro Lozano Jr. and Irene Lozano

Lauro Lozano Jr. and Irene Lozano sued JNM Express, LLC, ANCA Transport, Inc., Omega Freight Logistics, LLC, Jorge Marin, and Silvia Marin for negligence and gross negligence. The suit stemmed from a May 2015 eighteen-wheeler accident where Lauro fell asleep at the wheel, allegedly due to appellants' insistence on violating federal driver fatigue regulations. A jury found the businesses negligent and grossly negligent, awarding significant actual and exemplary damages to the Lozanos. The trial court subsequently reduced the exemplary damages. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the portion holding Jorge and Silvia Marin jointly and severally liable for exemplary damages, citing statutory restrictions on joint liability for such awards.

Trucking accidentCommercial motor vehicleDriver fatigueNegligenceGross negligenceCorporate veil piercingJoint and several liabilityExemplary damagesFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsTexas Court of Appeals
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Eurocopter Corp. v. CJ Systems Aviation Group

This case involves a helicopter crash caused by a defective main rotor gearbox. American Eurocopter Corporation (American), which overhauled and supplied the gearbox, appealed the trial court's judgment regarding its claims against CJ Systems Aviation Group (CJ), the helicopter operator. The helicopter, owned by Duke University Medical Center, crashed after its pilot, John Holland, and a mechanic, Charles Edgerton, decided to perform a "ferry flight" despite an oil-pressure warning light, believing it to be a faulty switch. The trial court found American's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, denied American's contractual indemnity claim against CJ based on the express negligence doctrine, and awarded CJ damages on its breach of warranty counterclaim for the cost of the defective gearbox. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was legally and factually sufficient evidence of American's negligence as a proximate cause and that the express negligence doctrine correctly barred American's indemnity claim. The court also upheld CJ's breach of warranty award, noting American failed to preserve its argument regarding the warranty's limitation of remedy.

Helicopter crashMain rotor gearboxProduct liabilityNegligenceProximate causeIndemnity agreementBreach of warrantyExpress negligence doctrineSuperseding causeFerry flight
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Bollier

Appellee Bollier sued appellant Railway Express Agency, Inc. for personal injuries sustained while lifting mail sacks as a messenger's helper. The appellant, a non-subscriber to workmen's compensation, was found negligent by a jury for failing to provide a safe workspace with adequate aisle width, which was the proximate cause of Bollier's injuries. The trial court entered judgment for Bollier, awarding $2,000. Appellant appealed, raising points regarding foreseeability, transitory conditions, and alleged irreconcilable jury findings concerning "risks incident to the work." The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's negligence findings and rejecting the appellant's other contentions, specifically stating the "risk incident" defense was incomplete without an inquiry into "sole proximate cause."

Personal InjuryEmployer NegligenceUnsafe Working ConditionsWorkmen's Compensation Non-SubscriberProximate CauseContributory NegligenceForeseeabilityAppellate ReviewJury VerdictRisk Incident to Work
References
10
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Structural Preservation Systems (SPS), was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while performing structural repairs in a building owned by 500 Lincoln, LLC and leased by DHL Express (USA), Inc. The plaintiff commenced an action against both entities, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln and denied DHL's motions for summary judgment to dismiss various claims against it. On appeal, the court modified the Supreme Court's decision, determining that DHL should have been granted summary judgment dismissing all Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against it, as DHL neither directed nor controlled the work. The court also found that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln should have been denied due to triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and the availability of adequate safety devices.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationProximate CauseSafe Place to WorkOwner LiabilityLessee Liability
References
29
Case No. 09-21-00222-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2023

Gicor, Inc., Memo Express, L.L.C., and Florencio Guerra v. Wayne Brewer and Melinda Brewer

This lawsuit concerns a dispute over a townhome in the Bellago community, purchased by Wayne and Melinda Brewer. They sued the developer, Gicor, Inc., Memo Express, L.L.C., and Florencio Guerra, for damages related to erosion, drainage, and structural issues. A jury found the defendants liable for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence, misrepresentation, gross negligence, and fraud, awarding actual and exemplary damages. The appellants challenged the reliability of expert testimony, the measure of damages, and post-trial amendments. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence and no abuse of discretion.

Real Estate LitigationConstruction DefectsProperty DamageSoil ErosionDrainage IssuesFoundation ProblemsDeceptive Trade Practices ActNegligenceFraudExemplary Damages
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 6,061 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