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. 03 Civ. 0332(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

In Re September 11th Liability Insurance Coverage Cases

This opinion and order addresses two Rule 12(c) motions regarding insurance coverage for the World Trade Center properties following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sought a declaration that it is an "Additional Insured" under Zurich American Insurance Company's policies, while World Trade Center Properties LLC (WTCP) sought a declaration that Zurich is obligated to cover defense costs. The court, presided over by District Judge Hellerstein, denied both motions. It found ambiguity in the binder regarding the Port Authority's "Additional Insured" status, stating that the issue was premature without further discovery. Furthermore, the court held that New York Insurance Regulation 107 does not require rewriting Zurich's binder and policies to include defense costs, considering the unique circumstances, the sophistication of the insured, and the fact that Zurich explicitly excluded defense costs, which Silverstein (WTCP's affiliate) accepted after failing to secure conventional coverage. The court also affirmed supplemental jurisdiction over the insurance claims due to their close relation to the underlying September 11th liability cases.

Insurance CoverageSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterRule 12(c) MotionDeclaratory ReliefAdditional Insured StatusDefense CostsInsurance BinderNew York Insurance LawRegulation 107
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security Insurance

The case examines if an insurer's breach of the duty to defend obligates it to indemnify the insured for a settlement, even when coverage is contested. Plaintiff Servidone Construction Corporation, an insured, settled an underlying claim after its insurer, Security Insurance Company, withdrew defense citing a policy exclusion. The lower courts ruled that Security was liable to indemnify Servidone due to its breach and the possibility of coverage. The Court of Appeals reversed, asserting that a duty to indemnify only arises from an actual covered loss, not merely from a breach of the duty to defend. It placed the burden on the insurer to prove the loss was not covered and remitted the case for further proceedings to determine actual policy coverage.

Duty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractInsurance LawSettlement AgreementCoverage DisputeWorkers' CompensationFederal Tort Claims ActCommon Law IndemnityContractual Indemnity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLaughlin v. Midrox Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiffs sought to compel Midrox Insurance Company to indemnify the Blodgett Brothers Partnerships for a $1 million judgment in an underlying personal injury action. The accident involved a motorcycle operated by plaintiff Charles R. McLaughlin and a pickup truck driven by Ronald Blodgett. Midrox had disclaimed coverage, arguing the accident occurred off insured premises and involved a registered vehicle. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the farmowner's policy did provide coverage. The court determined that public roadways used for transporting materials between farm parcels could be considered 'insured premises' and that the pickup truck's agricultural registration did not negate coverage given its exclusive use for farming purposes.

Personal InjuryFarmowner's InsuranceInsurance CoverageAgricultural TruckPolicy InterpretationOff-Premises AccidentPublic RoadwaysSummary JudgmentIndemnificationVehicle and Traffic Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Liquidation of Midland Insurance

Policyholders New York Dock Railway (NYDR) and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal (BEDT), joined by claimants Buividas and Romacho, moved to confirm a referee's report that found coverage for their claims by the Stock Workers' Compensation Security Fund. The Superintendent of Insurance, as liquidator of Midland Insurance Company, cross-moved to disaffirm the report, arguing against Security Fund coverage based on his interpretation of relevant statutes. The court reviewed the referee's decision, finding it erroneous due to a misinterpretation of legislative history and intent regarding security fund coverage limitations, particularly concerning Chapter 801 amendments. Upholding the Superintendent's rational interpretation, the court denied the motion to confirm and granted the cross-motion to disaffirm, affirming the denial of security fund coverage.

Workers' Compensation Security FundInsurance Coverage DisputeMidland Insurance Company LiquidationFederal Employers' Liability ActJones ActLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryThird-Party IndemnificationEmployer's Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobson Family Investments, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance

Jacobson Family Investments (JFI) and other plaintiffs invested with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) and purchased fidelity bonds from National Union and other excess insurers. After Madoff's fraud was exposed, JFI submitted a claim for losses including fictitious gains, which National Union denied, asserting coverage was limited to actual losses. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the insurers, limiting coverage to 'actual losses' and dismissing JFI's claim for breach of good faith, but found against aggregating claims and applying a single deductible for all net losers. On appeal, the court affirmed that the term 'loss' in the fidelity bond does not encompass fictitious Madoff gains, stating that one cannot lose money that never existed. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the breach of good faith claim but modified the lower court's decision, holding that the $3 million single loss deductible applies to each individual 'net loser' plaintiff's recovery, rather than being applied only once for all.

Fidelity BondInsurance CoverageMadoff FraudPonzi SchemeActual LossFictitious GainsSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationAmbiguityDeductible Application
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U. P. Iron Works v. Investors Insurance

Plaintiff insured brought a declaratory judgment action against their insurer, who issued both workers' compensation and general liability policies. The dispute arose after a partner was injured, leading to a third-party products liability action against the partnership. The insurer disclaimed coverage, citing lack of coverage for a direct suit by a partner and late notice of the accident. The court found that coverage existed for the third-party claim, extending it to a partner similar to an employee. Furthermore, the court determined that the notice provided by the insured, though three years after the accident, was not unreasonably late given the complexities involved. Consequently, the court declared the policy to be in full force and effect for the accident.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance CoverageWorkers' Compensation PolicyGeneral Liability PolicyThird-Party ClaimPartner InjuryEmployee ExclusionLate Notice DisclaimerDuty to DefendSummary Judgment Motion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of DiLascio v. Tilden Glen Head, Inc.

The claimant, a sole executive officer, initially excluded himself from workers' compensation coverage with the State Insurance Fund (SIF) in 1994. Despite this, from 2001, he included his salary in payroll statements, leading to higher premiums from 2004. In May 2006, while a policy explicitly excluding him was active, he suffered an injury and sought benefits. A workers' compensation law judge ruled SIF was estopped from denying coverage, believing the claimant reasonably expected coverage due to premium payments. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding estoppel inapplicable as the claimant had actual notice of non-coverage. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the active policy clearly excluded the claimant and that estoppel requires a lack of knowledge of facts, which the claimant lacked.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoverageEstoppelSole Executive OfficerPayroll StatementsPremium CalculationActual NoticeExclusion from CoverageWork-Related InjuryAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayden v. S & W Meat & Poultry

Claimant, a partner in S & W Meat & Poultry, sustained a serious injury. A workers' compensation claim was filed, but the carrier contested coverage, arguing that claimant, as a partner, had not formally elected coverage under Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (8). The Workers' Compensation Board applied estoppel, finding the carrier failed to advise the employer of the election requirement. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, holding that the employer's insurance broker, the Fear agency, was notified of the lack of coverage, and this knowledge is imputed to the employer. The court found insufficient evidence for estoppel and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEstoppelInsurance CoveragePartnershipAgent LiabilityImputed KnowledgePremium RefundAppellate ReviewRemittalWorkers' Compensation Law § 54 (8)
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cerbasi v. County Metal & Glass, Inc.

A claimant injured their left arm while working at a New York construction site for a New Jersey employer insured by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJMIC). A dispute arose regarding coverage, with the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board determining the policy covered the accident because New York was not an explicitly excluded state and NJMIC’s attempt to amend the policy was ineffective. NJMIC appealed, arguing the Board erred in its coverage finding and that Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (5) notice requirements did not apply to partial cancellations. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the Board's determination on coverage implicit and that NJMIC failed to demonstrate an effective exclusion or proper cancellation under Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). The court also noted NJMIC's argument regarding partial cancellation was unpreserved.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoveragePolicy ExclusionNew York LawNew Jersey BusinessStatutory ComplianceCancellation NoticeAppellate ReviewJurisdictionLeft Arm Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of North America v. Norris

This nonjury trial concerns an automobile accident where claimants Gladys M. Norris and her daughter Lisa were injured by a stolen Cadillac owned by Arc Leasing Corp. and insured by American Transit Insurance Company. The core issue was whether American Transit properly disclaimed coverage given its failure to provide written notice. The court, citing Insurance Law § 167(8) and precedent like Zappone v Home Ins. Co., determined that a denial of coverage based on lack of permissive use (due to a stolen vehicle) is akin to a policy exclusion, thus requiring written notice. American Transit's failure to provide such notice, even if claimants had actual knowledge, precluded it from asserting the 'stolen car' defense. Consequently, the petitioner's application for a permanent stay of arbitration was granted, and American Transit was ordered to afford coverage to Arc Leasing within policy limits.

Automobile AccidentInsurance Coverage DisputeDisclaimer of CoverageLack of Permissive UseStolen VehicleUninsured Motorist ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActionWaiver of DefenseStatutory Notice RequirementPolicy Exclusion Interpretation
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,628 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