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. 06-17-00112-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Orbison v. Ma-Tex Rope Co.

Samuel D. Orbison, a former employee of Ma-Tex Rope Company, Inc., resigned and joined competitor American Pipe Inspections, Inc. (API), subsequently soliciting Ma-Tex's customers using confidential information. Ma-Tex sued Orbison and API, obtaining a permanent injunction and an award for actual damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence for damages related to lost profits and goodwill, reversing that portion of the award. However, the court affirmed the permanent injunction against Orbison and API, as well as the award of attorney fees due to willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duties. The final judgment allowed Ma-Tex to recover $4,173.83 in actual damages for unjust enrichment, fee forfeiture, and profit disgorgement.

Non-compete clauseNon-disclosure agreementNon-solicitationEmployment disputeTrade secret misappropriationFiduciary duty breachPermanent injunction enforcementDamages calculationLost profitsGoodwill valuation
References
70
Case No. 12-20-00243-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2021

Bobby Martin v. WPP Properties, LLC, Jennifer M. Williams, William R. Pulley and Zachary D. Pulley

Bobby Martin, an independent contractor, sustained a fractured hip after tripping and falling down an external staircase while performing 'make ready' renovation work at the Manor Terrace Apartment complex, owned by WPP Properties, LLC. He subsequently sued WPP Properties, LLC, Jennifer M. Williams, William R. Pulley, and Zachary Pulley (Appellees) alleging negligence and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees, concluding that Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code applied and that Appellees did not retain control over Martin's work. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Martin's work constituted 'renovation' under Chapter 95, the staircase was part of the same 'improvement' as the apartment, and Martin failed to establish a fact issue regarding Appellees' control over his work, which is a prerequisite for liability under Chapter 95.

Negligence ClaimPremises LiabilityIndependent Contractor InjurySummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 95Property Owner ImmunityWorkplace InjuryRenovation WorkControl Over WorkActual Knowledge
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2003

Gabriel v. Boldt Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Raun Duval Gabriel, a construction worker, was injured when a defective hoisting apparatus collapsed while he and a coworker were attempting to lift a heavy metal insert. The cross member holding the pulley collapsed, striking the plaintiff with the pulley and rope. The Appellate Division concluded that a defective hoist, collapsing during use, constitutes a falling object under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus entitling plaintiffs to partial summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction InjuryHoisting Equipment FailureFalling Object DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReversalWorkplace AccidentAbsolute LiabilityScaffolding LawDefective Device
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2003

Keaney v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a laborer for York Scaffold, sustained a fractured scapula when wooden planks fell on him while he was hoisting them at a renovation site, allegedly due to inadequate safety devices in violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). A jury initially found for the plaintiff, but the trial court set aside the verdict, citing speculative causation. Upon reargument, the trial court maintained its determination. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding a rational basis for the jury's conclusion that the rope pulley failed to provide proper protection, thus reinstating the plaintiff's favorable verdict.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Falling ObjectScaffoldingHoisting AccidentJury VerdictAppellate ReviewMotion to Set Aside VerdictAbsolute Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Global Enercom Management, Inc.

This case addresses an insurance dispute between Global Enercom Management, Inc. and Mid-Continent Casualty Company concerning coverage for workers who died after a fall from a cell tower. The accident involved a rope-and-pulley system powered by a pickup truck. The court analyzed two insurance policy exclusions: an 'auto-use' exclusion and a 'subsequent-to-execution' clause. The Texas Supreme Court held that the 'auto-use' exclusion in the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy precluded coverage, reversing the appellate court's decision on this point. However, the court affirmed that the 'subsequent-to-execution' clause in both the CGL and Commercial Auto Policy (CAP) did not bar coverage, as the subcontract was considered 'executed' prior to the incident, despite Global's delayed signature.

Insurance CoverageAuto Use ExclusionSubsequent-to-Execution ClauseSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationCommercial General Liability PolicyCommercial Auto PolicyWorkers' CompensationCell Tower AccidentDeclaratory Judgment
References
22
Case No. No. 14-07-01006-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2009

MID-CONTINENT CAS. v. Global Enercom Mgmt.

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute between Mid-Continent Casualty Company (appellant insurer) and Global Enercom Management, Inc. (appellee insured). The dispute arose from a fatal accident involving subcontractor Allstates Construction Company employees on a cellular tower repair project in Arkansas, where a pulley system powered by a pick-up truck failed, causing three workers to fall to their deaths. Mid-Continent denied Global Enercom's request for defense and indemnity under Allstates' commercial general liability (CGL) and commercial auto policies, citing an auto exclusion and a contractual liability exclusion. The trial court granted Global Enercom's declaratory judgment motion, finding coverage. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the auto exclusion did not apply because the pick-up truck did not itself produce the injury (the defective rope did), and the contractual liability exclusion did not apply as the subcontract was deemed executed under Texas law prior to the accident, despite a delay in Global Enercom's signature.

Insurance Coverage DisputeCommercial General Liability PolicyCommercial Automobile PolicyAuto ExclusionContractual Liability ExclusionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionAppellate ReviewCausation in InsuranceInterpretation of Insurance Policies
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singh v. Fontaine

The plaintiff appealed an order denying partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) after falling from a scaffold due to a broken rope. The plaintiff presented evidence establishing a prima facie violation. The defendant's "recalcitrant worker" defense was insufficient because the employer instructed the plaintiff not to wear a safety belt as the securing rope was too short, rendering the equipment inadequate. The appellate court found the Supreme Court erred in denying the motion as the defendant failed to raise a genuine issue of fact. The order was reversed, and the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability was granted.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafety EquipmentRecalcitrant Worker DefenseNegligenceWorkplace SafetyFall Hazard
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2011

Fernandez v. BBD Developers, LLC

In this case, an employee of subcontractor Casino Development was performing demolition work at a construction site in Manhattan when he fell approximately 14 feet. The plaintiff, directed to cut and drop 500-pound steel beams while standing on a narrow exterior wall, was provided with a safety belt and rope by his supervisor, who also helped fasten it. However, the rope's length was not measured, and it was struck by a falling beam, causing the plaintiff to be pulled off the wall. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Court reversed this decision, granting the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries, as he followed supervisory instructions and was not provided with adequate safety measures or training.

Construction SafetyLabor Law 240(1)Scaffolding LawFall ProtectionDemolitionSupervisor NegligenceWorker InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2021

Mayorga v. 75 Plaza LLC

Plaintiff, a demolition worker, was injured when a 200-pound fire damper he was removing fell on him after a coworker's rope failed to secure it. He sought summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the rope an inadequate safety device for an elevation-related hazard. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, deeming the relied-upon Industrial Code provisions inapplicable to hazards arising directly from demolition work. The argument that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause was rejected due to lack of evidence.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR § 23-3.3Summary JudgmentDemolition AccidentElevation HazardInadequate Safety DeviceProximate CauseAppellate DivisionConstruction Site Injury
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rideaux v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Company

The libelant, Mrs. Louise Rideaux, sued Lykes Bros. Steamship Company for the wrongful death of her husband, a longshoreman killed by falling steel beams due to allegedly unseaworthy slings. Lykes admitted liability to Mrs. Rideaux. Subsequently, Lykes impleaded Paulsen-Webber Cordage Corp., the supplier of the wire rope used for the slings, seeking indemnity, alleging negligence and breach of contractual duties. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company intervened for subrogation for worker's compensation payments. The court denied the claim for conscious pain and suffering but awarded Mrs. Rideaux $54,350.00 in damages from Lykes. The court also denied Lykes's claim for indemnity against Paulsen-Webber, finding no defect in Paulsen-Webber's wire rope and concluding that Lykes's improper fabrication of the slings was the cause of the accident.

Admiralty LawWrongful DeathLongshoremanUnseaworthinessIndemnity ClaimProduct LiabilityWire RopeSling FailurePecuniary DamagesCausation
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 45 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