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. 16-CV-3812, 16-CV-5302
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Lighton Indus., Inc. v. Allied World Nat'l Assurance Co.

This case involves consolidated actions by Lighton Industries, Inc. and Hibuild Limited Liability Company against Allied World National Assurance Company and Mt. Hawley Insurance Company. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment regarding the insurers' duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying personal injury action, the Tunkara Action, stemming from an August 16, 2014 accident at Brooklyn College. The court granted Lighton and Hibuild's motions for summary judgment, determining that Allied and Mt. Hawley owe a duty to defend the plaintiffs in the Tunkara Action. This decision was based on ambiguities in the insurance policies' Classification Limitation and Designated Ongoing Operations Exclusion, which were construed against the insurers. However, all motions for summary judgment concerning indemnification were denied, and these claims were dismissed without prejudice as premature, as liability in the underlying Tunkara Action had not yet been determined.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationAmbiguityPolicy ExclusionClassification LimitationOngoing Operations ExclusionSubcontractor Liability
References
73
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. Claim No. 134
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Crystal Apparel, Inc.

The Reorganized Debtor, Crystal Apparel, Inc., successfully objected to Claim No. 134 filed by the Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries Fund, which sought $689,291.78 for alleged withdrawal liability. The Bankruptcy Court granted the Reorganized Debtor's motion for summary judgment, disallowing the claim. The court determined that the Fund's '1989 Rules' and '1991 Rules' for imposing withdrawal liability on the Social Insurance Fund were not lawfully adopted by the trustees or properly incorporated into the relevant agreements, thereby failing to satisfy the 'written agreement' requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5). The decision emphasized the principles of contract interpretation and cited a prior First Circuit case, Manchester Knitted Fashions, Inc. v. Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries Fund, which similarly rejected the Fund's arguments.

Bankruptcy LawSummary Judgment MotionClaim DisallowanceMultiemployer PlansWithdrawal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawTrust Fund AdministrationContract InterpretationLabor LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
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. ADJ6436254
Regular
Feb 16, 2018

RAMON GOMEZ vs. ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board rescinded a previous Findings and Award that found the applicant sustained industrial injuries resulting in 70% permanent disability. Both the applicant and defendant had sought reconsideration of that award. The rescission was ordered because the parties now wish to enter into a Compromise and Release agreement. The matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeLumbar Spine InjuryKnee InjuryPsyche InjuryWeight GainSleep DisturbanceSexual Dysfunction
References
0
Case No. ADJ4661956
Regular
Dec 24, 2008

JUAN HERNANDEZ vs. AMERICAN WASTE INDUSTRIES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND INSURED RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration in the case of Juan Hernandez v. American Waste Industries. The Board adopted the WCJ's report as the basis for denial, and also noted the applicant's objection to the Notice of Intention to Submit was untimely filed. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationWCJNotice of Intention to SubmitDENIEDAMERICAN WASTE INDUSTRIESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDADJ4661956JUAN HERNANDEZRiverside
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Roscoe & Simon

Petitioners, the Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries Insurance Fund, moved for confirmation of an arbitration award requiring payment from respondent Jacob Simon, individually and doing business as Victory Apparel Company. The respondent challenged the existence of a contractual relationship, arguing that a corporation, not he personally, was the contracting party. The court, presided over by Matthew M. Levy, J., found the challenge untimely and baseless, noting the respondent's participation in arbitration proceedings constituted a waiver of such claims. The court also clarified that the contract signatures, even with 'Pres.' appended, indicated personal liability, and previous corporate checks or communications did not alter the identity of the contracting party. Consequently, the motion for confirmation of the arbitration award was granted.

arbitration confirmationcontractual relationshipwaiver of claimspersonal liabilitycorporate veilsignature interpretationtimeliness of challengearbitration awardemployer liabilityunion fund
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sova Outerwear Corp. v. Trustees of Amalgamated Cotton Garment & Allied Industries Fund

Plaintiff Sova Outerwear Corporation moved for summary judgment against the Trustees of the Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries Fund, challenging the constitutionality of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). Sova argued MPPAA violated due process, operated retroactively, constituted a 'taking' of property, and infringed on Seventh Amendment rights by denying a jury trial. The defendant cross-moved for summary judgment to collect Sova's withdrawal liability. The court denied Sova's motion, upholding MPPAA's constitutionality based on consistent prior rulings. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding Sova liable for $65,249.48 plus interest, as Sova failed to object to the assessment or request arbitration within the statutory period, thus fixing its liability.

MPPAAERISAWithdrawal LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessSeventh AmendmentMultiemployer Pension PlanPension FundsEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2005

Vita v. New York Waste Services, LLC

In an action for personal injuries, the defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss their sixth, seventh, eighth, and eleventh affirmative defenses. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated the lack of merit of these defenses. The defenses were based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The plaintiffs provided substantial evidence that the injured plaintiff was employed by Allied Waste Services, Inc. and its subsidiary, Island Waste Services, and was injured by a vehicle owned by defendant New York Waste Services, LLC and operated by defendant Gene R. Brewer. The defendants failed to present sufficient evidence to counter these claims, particularly regarding their assertions of the injured plaintiff being an employee of New York Waste, or that New York Waste was an alter ego, joint venture, or special employer.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAffirmative DefensesMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(b)Appellate ReviewEmployment RelationshipAlter EgoJoint VentureSpecial Employee
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hygiene Industries v. Plastic, Metal, Novelty & Allied Workers' Union Local 132-98

Hygiene Industries sought to prevent Plastic, Metal, Novelty and Allied Workers’ Union, Local 132-98, I.L.G.W.U. from arbitrating a grievance concerning the proposed closure of two plants in Brooklyn, New York. Hygiene argued the dispute was not arbitrable because the collective bargaining and settlement agreements might expire before the plant closings. The Union contended that the settlement agreement’s duration was tied to Hygiene’s operations in Sardis, Mississippi, and that the broad arbitration clauses covered the dispute. The court emphasized the strong federal policy favoring arbitration in labor disputes. Ultimately, the motion to enjoin arbitration was denied, as the court found the expiration date of the Settlement Agreement ambiguous and a matter for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide.

ArbitrationLabor LawCollective BargainingPlant ClosureInjunctionGrievance ProcedureContract DurationFederal PreemptionJudicial DeferenceArbitrability
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,103 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