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

Scalone v. Celotex Corp.

Plaintiff George Scalone, a New Jersey resident, brought an action in New York claiming asbestos-related injuries from exposure in New York worksites. Defendants Combustion Engineering, Inc. and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was time-barred by the New York Borrowing Statute (C.P.L.R. § 202). They contended that Scalone's cause of action accrued in New Jersey, where he became ill, and therefore New Jersey's statute of limitations should apply, precluding the New York Toxic Tort Revival Statute (C.P.L.R. § 214-c(2)). The court denied the motions, holding that for the purposes of the Toxic Tort Revival Statute, the place of accrual and place of injury are the same, and both are New York, given the plaintiff's exposure in the state. The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the Toxic Tort Revival Statute and found no clear legislative intent to exclude non-residents exposed in New York, even if they had other potential forums.

Toxic TortAsbestos ExposureStatute of LimitationsBorrowing StatuteToxic Tort Revival StatuteC.P.L.R. § 214-c(2)C.P.L.R. § 202Personal InjuryInterstate LawForum Shopping
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cerny v. Marathon Oil Corp.

The Cernys sued Marathon Oil Corporation and Plains Exploration & Production Company for private nuisance and negligence, alleging toxic emissions from oil and gas operations in the Eagle Ford Shale damaged their health and property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the Cernys took nothing. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the Cernys failed to present sufficient expert evidence to establish causation under the Havner standards for their toxic tort claims. The court also found insufficient lay evidence for their loss-of-use damages claim. It determined expert testimony was necessary due to the nature of toxic tort claims and the Cernys' pre-existing conditions and other potential causes.

Toxic TortNuisanceNegligenceSummary JudgmentCausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological StudiesOil and Gas OperationsEnvironmental LawProperty Damage
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PORT AUTHORITY OF NY AND NJ v. Allied Corp.

This Memorandum & Order addresses a motion to dismiss warranty claims in an action brought by plaintiffs against numerous asbestos product companies. Plaintiffs alleged various claims, including breach of express and implied warranties. Defendants sought dismissal of the warranty claims, asserting they were barred by the U.C.C. § 2-725 four-year statute of limitations and not revived by the "Toxic Tort Revival Act." The Court found that implied warranties could not meet the "explicit" future performance exception of U.C.C. § 2-725(2), and the alleged express warranties lacked explicit reference to future performance. Additionally, the Court ruled that the Toxic Tort Revival Act, intended for personal injury or property damage, did not apply to contract-based warranty claims. Equitable estoppel based on alleged active concealment was also rejected due to the absence of a fiduciary relationship or prevention of timely action. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth claims for breach of implied and express warranty was granted, while other tort claims remained for adjudication.

AsbestosBreach of WarrantyStatute of LimitationsUCCToxic Tort Revival ActEquitable EstoppelImplied WarrantyExpress WarrantyFuture Performance ExceptionProducts Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. Republic Steel Corp.

Thirty plaintiffs filed a complaint against Republic Builders Products Corporation and Republic Steel Corporation, alleging toxic chemical emissions from a Tennessee plant caused health and environmental issues. They sought damages and injunctive relief under state and federal environmental laws, and common law torts. The defendants moved to dismiss, challenging subject matter jurisdiction. The court ruled that complete diversity jurisdiction was lacking as Republic Builders' principal place of business was in Tennessee. While denying federal question jurisdiction for claims seeking compensatory damages under the Clean Air Act and Toxic Substances Control Act, the court found that a claim for 'response costs' under CERCLA could establish federal question jurisdiction. However, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state tort claims, determining they predominated over the limited federal CERCLA claim, and dismissed them without prejudice for resolution in state tribunals.

Environmental LawToxic TortsSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionClean Air ActToxic Substances Control ActCERCLAPendent JurisdictionCorporate Veil
References
23
Case No. 08-25-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2025

Helena Chemical Company v. Philip Bales, Derek Dieringer, Wilber Dieringer, Michael Hoch, CMH Farms, Inc., MH Farms Services, Inc., Whit Braden, Donald Braden and Streicher Farms, Inc.

Helena Chemical Company sought a permissive appeal of a trial court's interlocutory order denying its no-evidence motion for summary judgment in a toxic tort and negligence lawsuit. The Appellees, who are farmers and landowners, filed suit against Helena Chemical, alleging that its aerial application of herbicide negligently spread onto their cotton fields, causing damage to their crops and yields. Helena Chemical contended that the Texas Supreme Court's holding in Helena Chemical Company v. Cox, 664 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. 2023), dictated that the Appellees' expert scientific testimony was unreliable and amounted to no evidence of causation. However, the appellate court denied the petition for permissive appeal, concluding that the applicability of Cox as controlling precedent does not present a 'controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion,' as the standards for admissibility of expert testimony in toxic tort cases are well-established by Texas jurisprudence.

Permissive AppealInterlocutory OrderSummary JudgmentToxic TortNegligenceExpert TestimonyCausationHerbicide DriftCrop DamageTexas Law
References
21
Case No. 09-3356
Regular Panel Decision

Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.)

This Revised Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding initiated by Placid Oil Company, a reorganized debtor from a 1980s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Placid sought a determination that post-confirmation tort claims, filed by the Williams Defendants (Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants) in Louisiana state court for asbestos exposure, were discharged by Placid's 1988 bankruptcy confirmation order. The claims arose from the death of Mrs. Myra Williams due to mesothelioma, allegedly caused by indirect asbestos exposure from her husband's work clothes while he was employed by Placid at its Black Lake Facility pre-confirmation. Applying the 'pre-petition relationship test,' the bankruptcy court found that Mrs. Williams' exposure constituted a pre-petition 'claim' and that the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants were 'unknown creditors.' Concluding that constructive notice via newspaper publication was sufficient for these unknown creditors and that appointing a future claims representative was not warranted, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Placid, discharging the tort claims.

Bankruptcy DischargeAsbestos ExposurePost-Confirmation ClaimsUnknown CreditorsDue Process NoticeSummary JudgmentPre-petition Relationship TestMesotheliomaTort LiabilityChapter 11 Reorganization
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Case No. 04-14-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Michael A. Cerny and Myra L. Cerny, Individually and as Next Friends of Cameron A. Cerny, a Child v. Marathon Oil Corporation, Marathon Oil EF LLC, and Plains Exploration & Producing Company

The Cernys sued Marathon Oil and Plains Exploration & Producing Company for private nuisance and negligence, alleging that toxic emissions from their oil and gas operations in the Eagle Ford Shale caused health issues and property damage. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the Cernys presented no evidence of causation. On appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court determined that the Cernys' claims were toxic torts requiring strict causation standards, including expert testimony to prove general and specific causation and to exclude other plausible causes, which the Cernys failed to provide. The appellate court also upheld the striking of the Cernys' summary judgment evidence.

Toxic TortNuisanceNegligenceSummary JudgmentCausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological StudiesOil and Gas OperationsEnvironmental ContaminationProperty Damage
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 1,065 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