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
Dec 22, 1992

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurer's claim for contribution. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, the liability insurer for Trio Drug Corporation and additional insured 58 Realopp Corporation, sought contribution from Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, Trio's workers' compensation carrier. Aetna had settled an underlying injury action where it represented both Realopp and Trio, and subsequently sued for 50% of the settlement amount. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Aetna's summary judgment motion and the granting of Greater New York's cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court applied the anti-subrogation rule, finding that Aetna could not assert a subrogated claim against its own insured, Trio, due to potential conflicts of interest arising from its dual representation in the underlying action.

anti-subrogation ruleconflict of interestsummary judgmentcontributionworkers' compensationliability insurancethird-party claimcommon law indemnityappellate reviewinsurer dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This case concerns a dispute between insurance carriers following a workers' compensation claim. Douglas K. Ellsmore was injured while unloading a hospital bed when Shirley S. Miller, insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, backed her car into him. Ellsmore's employer's workers' compensation carrier, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, paid over $65,000 in benefits and then sought reimbursement from State Farm via a loss transfer claim and demanded arbitration under Insurance Law § 5105. State Farm initiated a special proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, arguing that Aetna's claim lacked legal basis. Special Term denied the stay, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The court clarified that the "for hire" provision in Insurance Law § 5105 modifies "vehicle," limiting its application to vehicles hired for transporting people (like taxis) or livery vehicles for property, and does not extend to commercial deliveries by an owner's vehicle. Consequently, Aetna was not entitled to recover compensation payments under this statute.

Insurance LawWorkers' CompensationAutomobile InsuranceLoss Transfer ClaimArbitration StayStatutory Interpretation"For Hire" ClauseCommercial DeliveryVehicle InsuranceFirst-Party Payments
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gregory v. Hicksville Bicycle & Toyshop

Aetna Casualty and Surety, Inc. appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from July 29, 1980, which found Aetna liable for coverage on November 15, 1974, the date of an accident. Aetna contended its policy had expired due to an indorsement reducing its term or had been canceled. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of dual coverage, concluding that Aetna failed to comply with the strict cancellation requirements of subdivision 5 of section 54 of the Workers’ Compensation Law when attempting to reduce the policy's term. Therefore, the decision holding Aetna liable was affirmed, with costs awarded to Underwriters Insurance Company.

Insurance DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawPolicy CancellationCoverage LiabilityStatutory ComplianceAppellate ReviewDual CoverageInsurance Policy IndorsementEmployer InsuranceWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
5
Case No. 89 N.Y.2d 786
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1997

ITRI BRICK CORP v. Aetna Cas.

This case clarifies the enforceability of indemnification agreements in construction contracts under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. The Court of Appeals held that such agreements, if they purport to indemnify a general contractor for any portion of damages caused by its own negligence, are entirely void and unenforceable as against public policy, rather than merely partially unenforceable. The decision stemmed from two consolidated appeals, Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and Stottlar v Ginsburg Development Corp., where general contractors were found partially negligent for worker injuries. The Court affirmed the judgment in Itri and reversed the Appellate Division's decision in Stottlar, reinstating the Supreme Court's original judgment. The Court emphasized the legislative intent to prevent contractors from shifting liability for their own negligence.

Indemnification AgreementConstruction LawSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceStatutory InterpretationGeneral Obligations LawInsurance CoverageVoid ContractPublic PolicyNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This consolidated opinion addresses the enforceability of broad indemnification agreements between general contractors and subcontractors under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, especially when the general contractor is found partially negligent. The Court reviewed two appeals: Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. and Stottlar v Ginsburg Dev. Corp. In both instances, subcontractor employees suffered injuries, leading to claims against general contractors who, in turn, sought contractual indemnification. The Court concluded that because the agreements sought full indemnification, even where the general contractor contributed to the negligence, they were entirely void and unenforceable under the statute. The legislative intent behind § 5-322.1 is to prevent contractors from contractually shifting liability for their own negligence, whether in whole or in part, to subcontractors, thereby affirming the public policy against such clauses.

Indemnification agreementGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1Subcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor negligenceConstruction project injuriesWorkers' compensation insuranceCommercial general liabilityStatutory interpretationPublic policyContractual indemnification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Corp.

Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company (National) sought a declaratory judgment against defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Corporation (Aetna), asserting Aetna was a co-insurer for defense and indemnity obligations owed to an insured. The dispute arose from an underlying personal injury action where an employee of Karl Wrecking Company sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), for whom Karl provided wrecking services. National insured MTA under an owner's liability policy and Karl under a general liability policy, while Aetna provided Karl's workers' compensation policy, excluding contractual liability. The court found that National, controlling MTA's defense, strategically omitted a contractual indemnification claim against Karl, instead pursuing common law indemnification, to trigger Aetna's liability. The court denied National's request, ruling that National had manipulated the litigation for its own benefit, thereby placing its interests above those of its insureds and violating public policy against insurers subrogating against their own insureds.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance DisputeCo-InsuranceIndemnificationCommon Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationInsurer DutiesConflict of InterestSubrogationBad Faith
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LTV Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

Aetna Casualty and Surety Company appealed a Bankruptcy Court order approving a settlement involving National Fire Insurance Company, the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, and the Debtors (LTV Corporation and its affiliates). Aetna argued that the settlement, which released National Fire from all claims, improperly extinguished its potential claims as a co-surety against National Fire under a prior bond. The District Court found Aetna's appeal was not moot, rejecting the appellees' argument that substantial consummation of the bankruptcy plan made relief impossible. The court held that the bankruptcy court erred by extinguishing a non-debtor's (National Fire's) liability to a third party (Aetna) without a finding that such release was essential to the debtor's reorganization plan. The District Court vacated the Settlement Order and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court for modification to permit Aetna's claims against National Fire or for a finding that the Settlement Order is essential to the plan.

Bankruptcy LawSurety BondsWorkers' CompensationSettlement OrderNon-Debtor ReleaseMootness DoctrineEquitable PowersReorganization PlanCo-Surety ClaimsContribution and Indemnification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 1996

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance

Eldee Mike, an employee of Vanderbilt Biltmore Corp., was injured at a construction project owned and managed by Harry Macklowe, Harry Macklowe Real Estate Co., Inc., and McGraw Hudson Construction Corp. Vanderbilt, a subcontractor, was contractually obligated to indemnify Macklowe and name them as additional insureds on its liability policy with National Union. Mike subsequently sued Macklowe, who then brought a third-party action against Vanderbilt. National Union disclaimed coverage due to Vanderbilt's late notice, as Vanderbilt had been dissolved. Macklowe's insurer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, defended Macklowe and paid the judgment and legal fees, then sued National Union for reimbursement. The IAS Court initially denied Aetna's summary judgment motion and granted National Union's cross-motion, finding Aetna's notice untimely. The appellate court reversed, holding that Aetna, as Macklowe's subrogee, provided timely notice and that National Union's disclaimer, based solely on Vanderbilt's late notice, was ineffective against Aetna/Macklowe because their late notice was not asserted as a ground for disclaimer.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendContractual IndemnificationAdditional InsuredsLate Notice DisclaimerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalSubrogation ClaimConstruction LiabilityDissolved Corporation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DelRossi v. V

This case addresses an application by Bernadette DelRossi, as administratrix of her deceased husband John E. DelRossi's estate, for court approval of a wrongful death settlement and a declaration regarding a lien asserted by Aetna/U.S. Healthcare. John E. DelRossi died due to alleged medical malpractice, leading to a wrongful death action that settled for $825,000. Aetna/U.S. Healthcare (Aetna/Rawlings), an ERISA plan administrator, sought reimbursement for medical benefits paid to the decedent from these proceeds. The court ruled that Aetna/Rawlings' lien was invalid against the wrongful death settlement, as such proceeds do not form part of the decedent's estate and the administratrix, in this capacity, is not considered a plan member. The court granted all aspects of the plaintiff's application, including approving the settlement, counsel fees, the proposed distribution plan to the six distributees, and dispensing with the requirement for the administratrix to post a bond.

Wrongful DeathMedical MalpracticeERISA PreemptionSettlement DistributionLien InvalidityEstate AdministrationPecuniary LossInfant DistributeesJudicial DiscretionStatutory Interpretation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aetna Casualty. v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning Nassau County's authority to prohibit Aetna Casualty and Surety Company from acting as a surety on competitively bid public contracts. The prohibition stemmed from Aetna's default on a previous surety bond for a construction project with Manshul Construction Corporation. Aetna challenged Nassau County's actions, arguing they violated the Insurance Law and usurped the powers of the Superintendent of Insurance. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Insurance Law § 2504 (c) grants Nassau County the authority to determine the 'sufficiency' of a bond, encompassing the surety's performance quality. The court also found no legislative intent for the Insurance Law to preempt local regulation in this area. A dissenting opinion argued that state law preempted such local authority and that only the Superintendent of Insurance could regulate a surety's qualification.

Surety bondsPublic contractsInsurance lawPreemptionStatutory interpretationLocal government authorityContractual defaultAppellate reviewNassau CountyCorporate surety
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 38 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