Pimentel v. Maverick Maintenance & Supply LLC – 04-24-00792-CV – Feb 25, 2026
The court of appeals reversed the venue transfer from Harris County to Karnes County in a workplace injury case. The court held that the employer’s workers’ compensation exclusivity defense could not be resolved in a venue proceeding and did not negate the pleaded venue facts. Because Harris County was a proper venue when suit was filed, the transfer was improper. The case was remanded to Harris County for further proceedings.
Cotton v. A&D Interests Inc. – 14-25-00120-CV – Feb 24, 2026
The court of appeals affirmed a take-nothing judgment for a nonsubscriber employer in a personal injury suit arising from a slip-and-fall. Although the employee argued she was injured in the course and scope of employment and that contributory negligence should not have been submitted, the court held any error was harmless because the jury found no negligence by the employer. The court also held the trial court properly limited the charge to premises liability. The employer’s defense verdict was upheld.
Turner Specialty Services LLC v. Horn – 01-24-00097-CV – Feb 24, 2026
The court reversed the trial court’s order denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful death suit following an employee’s death. The court held that wrongful death claims for exemplary damages based on gross negligence are derivative of the decedent’s rights and therefore subject to the arbitration agreement signed by the employee. The court further held the employer did not waive its right to arbitrate by litigating jurisdictional issues. The case was remanded with instructions to compel arbitration.
In re Fort Bend County – 1731 S.W.3d 753 – Feb 24, 2026
The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin an Administrative Law Judge’s subpoena in a contested workers’ compensation case. The court concluded the Division of Workers’ Compensation had exclusive jurisdiction over compensability disputes and related discovery, and the claimant failed to follow statutory procedures for district court intervention. The district court’s orders were void, and the suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In re BD Trucking – 14-25-00735-CV – Feb 24, 2026
The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to designate the plaintiff’s subscribing employer as a responsible third party. The court concluded that workers’ compensation exclusivity does not bar designation under Chapter 33 and that the motion satisfied pleading requirements. The trial court was ordered to vacate its denial and grant the designation.
Lone Star Well Service LLC v. RMTDC Operations – 731 S.W.3d 93 – Feb 12, 2026
The court of appeals held that a contractor was entitled to defense and indemnity as a third-party beneficiary under a master services agreement that satisfied the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act’s safe harbor provision. The court affirmed the obligation to defend and indemnify but remanded for the trial court to determine and specify the monetary limits of the indemnity obligation. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Li v TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company – 01-24-00087-CV – Jan 15, 2026
The court of appeals affirmed a take-nothing judgment in favor of the employer after a jury rejected the employee’s sex discrimination and retaliation claims under the Texas Labor Code. The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to submit permissive-pretext jury instructions because they were not reasonably necessary to enable the jury to render a proper verdict. The court also found factually sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings. The judgment in favor of the employer was affirmed.
Marquis Construction Services, LLC v. Torres – 13-23-00266-CV – Jan 8, 2026
The Corpus Christi–Edinburg Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for the employee in a Texas Labor Code § 451.001 workers’ compensation retaliation case, holding that venue was improper in Hidalgo County. The court concluded that none of the essential events giving rise to the retaliation claim, including the injury, the employer’s knowledge of the injury, or the termination decision, occurred in Hidalgo County. Because Marquis established that its principal office and decision-makers were located in Brazoria County, a proper venue, the trial court erred by denying the motion to transfer venue.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Brown – 729 S.W.3d 625 – Jan 8, 2026
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that Exxon was entitled to judgment rendering take-nothing relief on certain damage awards and a new trial on others, while affirming that workers’ compensation exclusivity barred recovery for plaintiffs who were covered employees but not for the remaining plaintiffs who were not subscribers. The court rendered judgment that one plaintiff take nothing on future mental-anguish damages due to legally insufficient evidence and eliminated all physical-impairment damages for two plaintiffs because the charge required proof of losses that were both substantial and “extremely disabling,” which was not met. As to the remaining non-subscriber plaintiffs, the court held that some damages were supported by legally sufficient evidence but that excessive mental-anguish awards required reversal and remand for a new trial on negligence and damages.
Fernandez v. Heartland Co-Op – 07-24-00362-CV – Jan 6, 2026
The Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of the employer, holding that the exclusive-remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act barred the wrongful-death claim absent proof of gross negligence. The court concluded there was no evidence that the employer acted with objective or subjective conscious indifference because it had safety policies in place, the decedent was trained on those policies, and he entered the grain bin without authorization and in violation of those policies. The court also affirmed denial of the motion for new trial, ruling that the appellant waived any challenge to the exclusion of alleged newly discovered evidence.