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
Feb 27, 1981

France v. American Indemnity Co.

James Craig France sued American Indemnity Company for medical expenses under a worker's compensation settlement after suffering a shoulder dislocation. Despite a compromise agreement to cover future expenses from a 1975 injury, American Indemnity refused payment for surgery following a later dislocation in 1977, attributing it to a new injury. A jury found the expenses stemmed from the 1975 injury. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' take-nothing judgment, awarding France $2,192.10 for medical expenses and remanding the issue of attorney's fees for further proceedings, finding a breach of the settlement agreement.

Worker's CompensationBreach of ContractCompromise Settlement AgreementMedical ExpensesShoulder InjuryAffirmative DefensesAttorney's FeesPresentment of ClaimJury FindingsAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Associated Indemnity Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, a workmen's compensation insurer for a temporary labor contractor (Greene's Temporaries, Inc.), sued Associated Indemnity Company, the insurer for a customer (Frito-Lay Company), seeking subrogation for a compensation claim paid to an injured temporary employee. Hartford contended the loss was covered by Associated's policy as the employee was under Frito-Lay's control. The court reversed the trial court's decision in favor of Hartford, denying equitable subrogation. The appellate court found that Hartford had collected premiums for the temporary employees and was charged with knowledge of the contractual arrangement, thus preventing unjust enrichment if subrogation were granted.

Workmen's CompensationTemporary EmploymentSubrogationInsurance LawBorrowed Servant DoctrineRight of ControlEquitable RemediesUnjust EnrichmentInsurance PremiumsContractual Agreements
References
17
Case No. 3-94-122-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1995

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. State Board of Insurance, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Houston General Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, United States Fire Insurance Company

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (Facility) appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an order by the State Board of Insurance. The Board had ordered the Facility to indemnify several servicing companies for legal expenses incurred in litigation brought by Standard Financial Indemnity Company (SFIC). The Facility argued that Article 5.76-2, section 2.05(i) of the Texas Insurance Code, which states the Facility 'may not indemnify the servicing companies,' terminated the servicing companies' right to indemnification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the servicing companies had a vested contractual right to indemnification which arose when they entered into servicing company agreements, and that section 2.05(i) could not be applied retroactively to impair these vested rights. The court found that the law existing at the time the contracts were made, which included the Facility's bylaws allowing for indemnification, was incorporated into the agreements.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawContractual RightsVested RightsRetroactive Application of LawIndemnificationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance Code
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Energy Service Co. of Bowie, Inc. v. Superior Snubbing Services, Inc.

Daryll Faulk, an employee of Superior Snubbing Services, Inc., was injured and subsequently sued Mitchell Energy Corporation and Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc. Energy settled with Faulk and then sought indemnity from Superior, citing an indemnity provision in Superior's contract with Mitchell. Superior denied liability, arguing that Texas Labor Code section 417.004 requires a direct written indemnity agreement between the employer and the third party, which was absent with Energy. Justice Johnson's dissenting opinion agrees with the court of appeals' interpretation of section 417.004, emphasizing that the plain language of the statute precludes indemnity without a direct agreement between the indemnifying employer and the indemnified third party. The dissent highlights that this interpretation supports the legislative intent of the 1989 workers' compensation reforms to limit employer liability and reduce costs. The dissent would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, thereby denying Energy's indemnity claim against Superior.

Workers' CompensationIndemnityTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationThird-Party LiabilityContract LawEmployer ImmunityLegislative IntentDissenting OpinionOilfield Anti-Indemnity Act
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Indemnity Co. v. Pate

Home Indemnity, a worker's compensation carrier, made payments to employee Charles Riddle, who subsequently sued Allied Chemical Corporation in federal court. Home Indemnity's attempt to intervene in the federal suit to assert its subrogation lien was denied as untimely. Riddle and Allied Chemical settled without addressing Home Indemnity's claim. Consequently, Home Indemnity filed a state court suit against Riddle, Allied Chemical, attorney Gordon Pate, and his law firm, alleging conversion for disbursing funds without acknowledging the lien. Pate's motion for summary judgment, citing res judicata/collateral estoppel and good faith reliance on the federal judgment, was granted by the trial court. The appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that Home Indemnity was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel since it was not a party to the federal judgment on the merits of its claim, and that good faith is not a defense to conversion.

Subrogation LienSummary Judgment AppealRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelConversionInsurance Carrier RightsThird-Party LiabilityTexas Civil PracticeFederal Judgment ImpactAttorney Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 1979

Texas General Indemnity Co. v. McKay

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Indemnity Company, after the trial court denied its motion for a new trial. A default judgment was entered against Indemnity Company in a workers' compensation case filed by plaintiff McKay, awarding total permanent disability and medical expenses. The defendant failed to appear for trial, leading to the default judgment on June 21, 1979. Indemnity Company's subsequent motions for a new trial were overruled by operation of law on September 3, 1979. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the defendant did not satisfy the legal requirements for setting aside a default judgment, specifically regarding the reasons for non-appearance, presenting a meritorious defense, and ensuring no prejudice to the plaintiff.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialWorkers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityAppellate ProcedureMeritorious DefenseFailure to AppearJudicial DiscretionBurden of ProofAffidavit Evidence
References
11
Case No. 04-08-00070-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2008

the Connecticut Indemnity Company v. Latietta J. Cay

Latietta Cay, injured on the job at Normandy Terrace Nursing Home, filed a workers' compensation claim which her employer's insurer, Connecticut Indemnity Company, contested. After an adverse decision by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel, Cay sought judicial review. The trial court granted Cay’s motions for summary judgment, determining Connecticut Indemnity waived its right to dispute compensability and that Cay had a disability. Connecticut Indemnity appealed, arguing the trial court should have stayed proceedings pending a Texas Supreme Court decision in another case (*Mitchell*) and erred in granting summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed, stating the trial court was not obligated to await the *Mitchell* decision and that Connecticut Indemnity failed to challenge all grounds for summary judgment.

Workers' CompensationWaiverCompensabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeInsurance ClaimDisabilityEmployer LiabilityJudicial Precedent
References
6
Case No. 3-91-003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1993

Texas Commissioner of Insurance Georgia D. Flint, Permanent Receiver of Standard Financial Indemnity Corporation v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Employers Insurance of Wausau, a Mutual Company, the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Houston General Insurance Company, CIGNA Insurance Company of Texas, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Standard Financial Indemnity Corporation (SFIC) appealed the Travis County district court's judgment dismissing its suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SFIC alleged antitrust and tortious interference claims, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool and its members conspired to monopolize the market and unfairly treated its servicing company application. The Hidalgo County district court transferred venue to Travis County, a decision SFIC contested. The Court of Appeals found that SFIC had pleaded valid common law causes of action not solely governed by statutory procedures and that the venue transfer based on forum non conveniens was unauthorized under Texas law. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case with instructions to return it to Hidalgo County for further proceedings.

AntitrustTortious InterferenceSubject Matter JurisdictionVenue TransferForum Non ConveniensWorkers' Compensation Assigned Risk PoolTexas Free Enterprise and Antitrust ActStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDistrict Court
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acceptance Indemnity Insurance v. Maltez

This case involves a declaratory judgment action filed by Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company against Melvin Alfredo Maltez and Associated Automotive, Inc. (AAI). Defendants sought entry of judgment following a state court decision that found AAI jointly and severally liable for Maltez's injuries, which occurred while he was operating a torch on AAI/Salvage premises. The state court judgment against AAI was based on a finding that AAI operated as a "single business enterprise" (SBE) with Associated Automotive Salvage (Salvage), Maltez's direct employer. Acceptance Indemnity sought a declaration that its policy did not cover AAI's liability due to an employee exclusion and the nature of the "garage operations" coverage. A jury found that Maltez was not an employee of AAI and that his injury resulted from AAI's garage operations. However, the federal court, notwithstanding the jury's verdict, found insufficient evidence that Maltez’s injury resulted from AAI’s specific garage operations. Ultimately, the Court ruled that while the policy didn't strictly require the injury to result from the named insured's garage operations, it also concluded that liability assessed solely via the SBE doctrine is insufficient to trigger an insurer's duty to indemnify. The court denied Defendants' motion for entry of judgment, finding Acceptance Indemnity had no duty to indemnify AAI.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeSingle Business Enterprise DoctrineCorporate Veil PiercingGarage Operations PolicyTexas Contract LawEmployee Exclusion ClauseIndemnification DutyRisk Distribution in InsuranceStatutory Interpretation
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Indemnity Co. v. Rios

Porfirio R. Rios sued The Home Indemnity Company to enforce a compromise settlement agreement approved by the Industrial Accident Board and sought attorney's fees and a 12% penalty under Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 8307, § 12 and § 5a. The trial court awarded the fees and penalty. On appeal, the court examined whether the Board's approval of a compromise settlement agreement constituted a 'final order, ruling or decision' under Section 5a, which would authorize the attorney's fee and penalty. The court distinguished previous interpretations, noting a change in the Board's rules regarding enforcement, and concluded that a compromise settlement agreement does not fall under Section 5a's definition of a 'final order' necessary to trigger the statutory penalty and fees. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the statutory attorney's fee and penalty were not recoverable.

Compromise Settlement AgreementWorker's Compensation InsuranceStatutory Attorney's FeesStatutory PenaltyIndustrial Accident BoardFinal Order InterpretationTexas Civil StatutesAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalInsurance Carrier Liability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,859 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