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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07194 [167 AD3d 142]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Allied Capital Corp.

This appeal concerns an arbitration dispute between American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) and Allied Capital Corporation regarding insurance coverage for a $10.1 million settlement. An arbitration panel initially issued a Partial Final Award (PFA) on liability but later reconsidered and reversed its decision, leading to a corrected PFA and a final award. AISLIC petitioned to vacate these subsequent awards and confirm the original PFA. The Appellate Division, First Department, ruled that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority under the functus officio doctrine by reconsidering its prior final determination on liability. Consequently, the corrected PFA and the final award were vacated, and the original PFA was reinstated.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardVacaturInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrator AuthorityLiabilityDamages
References
32
Case No. 23
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company v. Allied Capital Corporation

This case addresses whether an arbitration panel exceeded its authority by reconsidering a "Partial Final Award" in an insurance dispute. The underlying dispute involved Ciena Capital LLC and Allied Capital Corporation seeking coverage from American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) after settling a federal qui tam action. Initially, the arbitration panel issued a partial award, which was later reconsidered and corrected to grant both indemnification and defense costs. AISLIC challenged this reconsideration, arguing the panel was functus officio. The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division ruling, holding that the initial "Partial Final Award" was not truly final because the parties had not mutually agreed to its finality. Consequently, the arbitration panel was deemed to have acted within its authority by reconsidering its initial determination, and the petition to vacate the corrected award was denied.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardReconsiderationArbitrator AuthorityInsurance CoverageIndemnificationDefense CostsQui Tam ActionNew York Court of Appeals
References
18
Case No. ADJ1063483 (SBR 0342621)
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

SONG ROGERS (Deceased); RICHARD ROGERS, vs. ALLIED VAN LINES, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves Allied Van Lines seeking reconsideration of a prior order finding their employee, Song Rogers (now deceased), sustained a work-related injury. The employer argued the finding was based solely on the inconsistent testimony of the deceased's husband regarding employment details. The Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's findings that the husband's testimony was credible despite apparent inconsistencies. The Board emphasized the judge's opportunity to assess witness demeanor as critical to the credibility determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAllied Van LinesTransguard Insurance Company of AmericaSong RogersRichard RogersFindings and OrderDarren Bergey M.D.employee statuscredibility determinationdeposition testimony
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1990

Service Sign Erectors Co. v. Allied Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

Plaintiff Service Sign, a subcontractor, initiated an action for damages in breach of contract or quantum meruit against Allied, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, after a billboard Allied had contracted to build for the Authority collapsed due to insufficient support. Allied subsequently filed a third-party action against the Authority, seeking indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted dismissal of the first cause of action in the third-party complaint but denied dismissal for the second and third causes of action. On appeal, the higher court modified this decision, ruling that implied indemnification was not available to Allied. The court found that the existing contract between Allied and the Authority explicitly provided for one-way indemnification from Allied to the Authority, thereby precluding any reciprocal implied obligation. Consequently, the appellate court granted the dismissal of all three causes of action in Allied's third-party complaint against the Authority, affirming the modification without costs.

IndemnificationImplied IndemnificationExpress ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitSubcontractorAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) moved to lift the automatic stay imposed during Eastern Air Lines, Inc.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. ALPA sought to continue three arbitration proceedings related to a pay-parity provision in their collective bargaining agreement, which had been automatically stayed. The court considered the federal policy favoring labor arbitration, the potential impact on the bankruptcy estate, and the willingness of arbitrators to allow the Official Unsecured Creditor’s Committee to participate. Finding that 'cause' existed to modify the stay and noting the availability of claims estimation under 11 U.S.C. § 502(c) as a safeguard against undue delay, the court granted ALPA's motion, allowing the arbitration proceedings to resume.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsAutomatic Stay ReliefLabor ArbitrationCollective BargainingRailway Labor ActPay Parity GrievanceChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' Committee ParticipationSection 362(d)Dispute Resolution
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1999

Torres v. Allied Tube & Conduit

This case concerns an action for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while unloading bundles of pipes from a truck. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against Allied Tube & Conduit, Quality, and Blass Employment Corp. The court found Allied not vicariously liable for Cresco Lines' alleged negligence, citing Cresco as an independent contractor. Claims against Blass were dismissed as its employee was acting as a special employee of HTS Racks. However, the order was modified to reinstate the plaintiff's common-law negligence claim against Cresco Lines. This reinstatement was based on alleged defects in Cresco's delivery truck that prevented the installation of vertical restraints, which raised issues of fact.

Personal injurySummary judgmentCommon-law negligenceVicarious liabilityIndependent contractorInherently dangerous activityWorkers' compensationProximate causeSpecial employeeDelivery truck defects
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peros v. Grace Line, Inc.

Mile Peros, a longshoreman employed by Grace Line, Inc., sought damages for injuries sustained on the S.S. SANTA LUISA, owned by Grace Line, Inc. He filed an action at law against Grace Line, Inc. and a proceeding in admiralty against the ship and Grace Line, Inc. as claimant. The defendant moved to dismiss the actions, arguing that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy. Peros countermoved to strike these defenses. The court, citing precedent from Reed v. S.S. Yaka and similar cases, denied the respondent's motion and granted the libelant's motion, concluding that Yaka controlled despite the defendant being the actual owner and stevedore employer.

LongshoremenHarbor WorkersCompensation ActAdmiraltyMaritime LawPersonal InjuryExclusive RemedyShipownerEmployer LiabilityMotion Practice
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01314 [180 AD3d 969]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2020

Alexandridis v. Van Gogh Contr. Co.

Theodoros Alexandridis, an injured plaintiff, brought an action against Van Gogh Contracting Company, Van Gogh Painting Corp., Van Gogh Construction Corp. (collectively Van Gogh defendants), and Christopher Meskouris and Filantey Meskouris (collectively Meskouris defendants) after sustaining injuries from a ladder fall at the Meskouris defendants' home. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, denying the Van Gogh defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims due to triable issues of fact regarding their contractor status and control over the worksite. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Meskouris defendants on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, citing their failure to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition. It also affirmed the Meskouris defendants' summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) based on the homeowner's exemption.

Personal injuryLadder accidentConstructionHomeowner's exemptionLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentTriable issues of fact
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pereda v. Grace Line, Inc.

This case involves a stevedore who brought an action for personal injuries against Grace Line, Inc., the owner of a ship where the accident occurred. The stevedore, while carrying bananas, fell from a ramp improvised from loose planks. The claim was based on negligence, not unseaworthiness. The court found no evidence that the manner in which the ramp was formed, of loose planks, was contrary to good or accepted practice. Consequently, the complaint against defendant Grace Line, Inc. was dismissed, modifying a previous judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the third-party defendants against third-party plaintiff Grace Line, Inc.

Personal InjuryStevedoreNegligenceShip AccidentWorkplace SafetyRamp AccidentLoose PlanksComplaint DismissalAppellate DecisionThird-Party Claim
References
0
Case No. ADJ12705097
Regular
Sep 21, 2022

FRED BROYLES vs. ATLAS VAN LINES, ARCH INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

In Broyles v. Atlas Van Lines, the WCAB denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding of 29% permanent disability. The Administrative Law Judge and the Board found that the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) properly utilized the Almaraz/Guzman principles to deviate from a strict AMA Guides rating. The QME's analogy to a hernia condition was deemed substantial evidence for assessing the applicant's impairment due to limitations on lifting and its impact on daily living activities. The Board concluded the QME adequately explained the departure from the standard rating and provided sufficient reasoning for the alternative assessment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4660.1(d)scheduled ratingprima facie evidencerebuttableMilpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Almaraz-Guzman IIIwhole person impairment (WPI)AMA Guides
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 658 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