CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiffs William Glenn and Cheryl Glenn sued Glenn's employer, L. Ray Calhoun & Co. (Calhoun), for negligence after a workplace injury, later adding OneBeacon America Insurance Company (OneBeacon) for policy benefits. Calhoun, in turn, sued OneBeacon for coverage and also Texas Business Purchasing Alliance (TBPA), Assurance Resources, Inc. (ARI), and Ty Templeton (Agent Defendants) for fraud and misrepresentation regarding the occupational accident policy. OneBeacon counterclaimed against Calhoun for costs. The court addressed motions for summary judgment from all parties concerning insurance coverage claims and state law fraud/misrepresentation claims. The court found Calhoun failed to exhaust administrative remedies under ERISA and violated the 'fortuity doctrine' by attempting to obtain coverage after a known loss, thus Glenn was not covered. It also determined Calhoun's state law claims against OneBeacon were preempted by ERISA and claims against Agent Defendants were largely barred by the statute of limitations. For the remaining claims, the court found no actionable misrepresentations, as Templeton was not an agent for OneBeacon, TBPA, or ARI, and Calhoun failed to show the elements of fraud. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment for OneBeacon, TBPA, ARI, and Templeton, denying Calhoun's motion.
Glenn v. L. Ray Calhoun & Co. is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, W.D. Texas. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, W.D. Texas.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiffs William Glenn and Cheryl Glenn sued Glenn's employer, L. Ray Calhoun & Co. (Calhoun), for negligence after a workplace injury, later adding OneBeacon America Insurance Company (OneBeacon) for policy benefits. Calhoun, in turn, sued OneBeacon for coverage and also Texas Business Purchasing Alliance (TBPA), Assurance Resources, Inc. (ARI), and Ty Templeton (Agent Defendants) for fraud and misrepresentation regarding the occupational accident policy. OneBeacon counterclaimed against Calhoun for costs. The court addressed motions for summary judgment from all parties concerning insurance coverage claims and state law fraud/misrepresentation claims. The court found Calhoun failed to exhaust administrative remedies under ERISA and violated the 'fortuity doctrine' by attempting to obtain coverage after a known loss, thus Glenn was not covered. It also determined Calhoun's state law claims against OneBeacon were preempted by ERISA and claims against Agent Defendants were largely barred by the statute of limitations. For the remaining claims, the court found no actionable misrepresentations, as Templeton was not an agent for OneBeacon, TBPA, or ARI, and Calhoun failed to show the elements of fraud. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment for OneBeacon, TBPA, ARI, and Templeton, denying Calhoun's motion.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.