LKQ Automotive v. Romo – 08-25-00104-CV – Oct 31, 2025
The El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of LKQ and Duron’s motion to compel arbitration. The court held the employee qualified for the FAA § 1 transportation-worker exemption, so the FAA did not require arbitration. Because appellants did not seek enforcement under the TAA or other state law, the arbitration agreement was not enforced and the case returns to the trial court.
Rudolph Automotive, LLC v. Juarez – 08-24-00142-CV – Aug 20, 2025
The El Paso Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order that had disregarded the jury’s findings and held, as a matter of law, that two employees were acting in the course and scope of employment when an accident occurred. Because Rudolph Automotive was a non-subscriber to workers’ compensation insurance, its liability and defenses depended on whether the employees were within the course and scope of employment. The appellate court ruled that the jury’s findings—that the employees were not in the course and scope—were supported by evidence and could not be set aside.
In re Murillo – 08-24-00323-CV – Oct 17, 2024
The 8th Court of Appeals denied the Employee-Plaintiff’s petition for mandamus to overrule the lower court’s order compelling arbitration in a non-subscriber work-injury claim.
MVT Services, LLC v. Robles – 08-23-00181-CV – Jun 17, 2024
The 8th Court of Appeals (El Paso) affirmed the trial court’s order denying Defendant-NonSubscriber-Employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court found that the Plaintiff-Employer was not a party to the arbitration agreement.
In re Arch Insurance Company – 08-23-00223-CV – Oct 31, 2023
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) upheld the trial court’s decision to strike Carrier’s intervention. The Court concluded that the trial court could have rationally determined that the equities weighed in favor of finding that Carrier’s lengthy and prejudicial delay in filing its petition in intervention constituted a “sufficient cause” for striking the petition.
Rush Truck Centers of Texas L.P. v. Mendoza – 676 S.W.3d 821 – Sep 01, 2023
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the lower court’s denial of a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. The Court, however, noted that because the right to workers’ compensation benefits, including death benefits, arises within the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act itself, the statutory right to pursue such administrative benefits cannot be altered by contract. As such, Plaintiff-Beneficiary’s workers’ compensation claim was not subject to the Arbitration Agreement, but rather, was properly within the statutory framework of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.
A-1 Freeman Moving & Storage LLC v Ortiz Galindo – 08-23-00001-CV – Aug 23, 2023
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration as to A-1 Freeman Moving and affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration as to A-1 Freeman NA.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Tidwell – 677 S.W.3d 98 – Apr 28, 2023
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the lower court’s denial of the Defendant-Employer’s plea to the jurisdiction in a claim for workers’ compensation retaliation. The Court found that Plaintiff-Employee failed to raise a question of fact on whether Defendant-Employer’s stated reason for termination based on its absence-control policy was pretextual in nature.
Cook v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company – 677 S.W.3d 52 – Apr 12, 2023
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the lowers court’s order granting Defendant-Insurance-Carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgement which found the Plaintiff-Employee was not in the course and scope of employment while driving from his home to the Employer’s work site. The Court found that the Plaintiff-Employee raised a genuine issue of fact as to the course-and-scope requirement for a compensable injury as to both the origination of his trip and that his trip furthered the Employer’s business. The Court also found that the Plaintiff-Employee showed an exception to the coming-and-going exclusion.
Croysdill v. Old Republic Insurance Company – 668 S.W.3d 782 – Feb 09, 2023
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction in favor of Defendant-Employer. The Court noted that the Defendant-Carrier was within its statutory right to dispute extent of injury even though there had been a previous determination regarding maximum medical improvement and impairment rating.