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

Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance

Plaintiff insurance companies, Continental Insurance Co. and American Casualty Co. (CNA), initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they have no duty to indemnify Robert A. Keasbey Co. (Keasbey) for asbestos-related claims, arguing that all claims fall under exhausted products hazard/completed operations coverage. The defendant class of asbestos claimants sought coverage under a new 'operations' theory not subject to aggregate limits. The trial court ruled in favor of the claimants, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court found that equitable affirmative defenses like laches applied against the claimants, who stood in Keasbey’s shoes. It further determined that coverage is triggered by 'injury-in-fact' rather than mere exposure to asbestos, and that the aggregate limits of the primary and excess policies were exhausted, thus absolving CNA of further indemnity obligations.

AsbestosInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentProducts HazardCompleted OperationsOperations CoverageAggregate LimitsExcess InsuranceBodily InjuryInjury-in-Fact
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2000

AIU Insurance v. American Motorists Insurance

This case concerns an appeal regarding primary liability coverage for HRH Construction Corp. and Hotel Grand Central in an underlying personal injury action. Plaintiffs, including their excess insurer AIU Insurance Co., sought to compel American Motorists Insurance Co. and St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. to provide primary defense and reimbursement. The court found American Motorists obligated to defend HRH and the Hotel, as their policy covered them as additional insureds for claims "arising out of" work performed by American Motorists' primary insured, Cord Contracting Co. However, St. Paul was not similarly obligated, as the injury did not "arise out of" work by its insured, Forest Electric Corp. Consequently, the court modified the prior declaration, vacating the plaintiffs' favor against St. Paul and dismissing Cord Contracting Co.'s cross-appeal.

Insurance DisputePrimary Liability CoverageExcess InsuranceAdditional InsuredPersonal InjuryConstruction SiteSubcontractorContractual ObligationDuty to DefendIndemnification
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perfect Dental, PLLC v. Allstate Insurance

In this consolidated action, plaintiffs Perfect Dental Care, P.C., Zodiac Dental, PLLC, and Smooth Dental PLLC (Dental PCs) sought unpaid insurance claims from Allstate Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Insurers). The Insurers countersued alleging insurance fraud and unjust enrichment, and initiated a third-party action against various individuals and entities. The Insurers moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaratory judgment that Dental PCs could not recover for services provided by dentists and physical therapists, and for summary judgment on their fraud and unjust enrichment counterclaims. The court denied summary judgment concerning dentists' services, finding a triable issue of fact regarding their employment status. However, it granted summary judgment for the Insurers regarding physical therapy services, as Dental PCs conceded these services were provided by non-employees. Consequently, the court also denied summary judgment on the fraud and unjust enrichment claims, as their resolution depended on the unresolved employment status of the dentists.

Insurance ClaimsHealthcare ServicesContract LawSummary JudgmentProfessional CorporationsIndependent ContractorsEmployment LawFraud AllegationsUnjust EnrichmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yklik Medical Supply, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Yklik Medical Supply, Inc., a medical supply provider, sued Allstate Insurance Company to recover $317 in unpaid medical bills for equipment supplied to its assignor, Tammy Agosto. Yklik moved for summary judgment, asserting proper bill submission and Allstate's failure to timely pay or deny the claim. Allstate argued that the charges exceeded the Workers' Compensation fee schedule and that a partial payment had been made. The court found that Yklik established a prima facie case. The central issue was whether Allstate's fee schedule defense was precluded due to its failure to issue a timely denial within 30 days as mandated by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. The court ruled that since Allstate waited 56 days to send its denial, it was precluded from raising the fee schedule defense, and therefore, summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

No-fault insurancesummary judgmenttimely denialfee schedulepreclusion ruleinsurance lawmedical supplybilling practicespersonal injury protectionassignor
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 1995

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. State Insurance Fund

Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union) initiated a declaratory judgment action against The State Insurance Fund (SIF) to recover defense and settlement costs. These costs were expended on behalf of Regional Scaffolding and Hoisting Co., Inc., a mutually insured party in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court initially denied National Union's motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of SIF. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the antisubrogation rule did not apply in this context. Consequently, it determined that National Union and SIF were co-insurers for Regional Scaffolding's common-law liability. The court granted National Union's motion for summary judgment in part, declaring SIF's duty to reimburse National Union for one-half of the reasonable settlement and defense costs, and remanded for a trial to ascertain these amounts.

Antisubrogation RuleDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeCo-Insurer LiabilityDefense Costs ReimbursementSettlement CostsEmployer's LiabilityComprehensive General LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03749
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2019

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Buffalo Neurosurgery Group

The plaintiff, Allstate Insurance Company, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion for summary judgment on a complaint seeking a de novo determination of no-fault insurance benefits and, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the defendant, Buffalo Neurosurgery Group. The case originated from a motor vehicle accident where Christopher Krull underwent spinal fusion surgery. The defendant, as Krull's assignee, submitted a claim for no-fault benefits, which Allstate denied. The matter proceeded through arbitration, with the master arbitrator affirming an award to the defendant. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order. It granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the amount of benefits sought by the defendant was not in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule, and it deleted the provision awarding summary judgment to the defendant. The court affirmed the denial of Allstate's motion concerning the medical necessity of the surgery, stating Allstate failed to meet its prima facie burden on that issue. The order was affirmed as modified, with costs payable to the plaintiff.

no-fault insurance benefitsworkers' compensation fee schedulesummary judgmentmedical necessityde novo determinationarbitration awardappellate reviewspinal fusion surgeryinsurance law § 5106assignee claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1991

North River Insurance v. United National Insurance

This appellate decision addresses the apportionment of liability between North River Insurance Co. and United National Insurance Company arising from a settlement for an injured employee. The court clarified that North River, as the workers' compensation carrier, is solely responsible for its waived lien, reversing a lower court's finding. It further determined that both insurers' "other insurance" clauses called for pro rata contribution, not equal shares, for the $588,245 settlement payment and defense costs. The court calculated specific shares for each insurer and ruled that North River is entitled to interest from the original payment date in 1982. The Supreme Court's order was thus modified to reflect these findings.

Insurance disputePro rata contributionEquitable apportionmentWorkers' compensation lienDefense costsOther insurance clausesSettlement apportionmentInterest calculationAppellate decisionInsurer liability
References
10
Case No. 2016-1458 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2018

Pavlova v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding first-party no-fault benefits sought by Ksenia Pavlova, D.O., as assignee of Cosby Reavis, against Allstate Insurance Company. The Civil Court had denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and partially granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing claims for services billed under CPT code 20999, arguing plaintiff was not entitled to payment under the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term modified the Civil Court's order, finding that Allstate's denial of claims for CPT code 20999 was without merit because the insurer failed to request additional documentation as required by 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(b) for "By Report" codes. However, the Appellate Term affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, noting the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that claims were not timely denied or that denials were conclusory. The matter was remitted to the Civil Court for a determination on the medical necessity of the CPT code 20999 services, a ground not previously addressed.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate TermCPT Code 20999Workers' Compensation Fee ScheduleMedical NecessityClaim DenialVerification Request11 NYCRR 65-3.5(b)Insurance Law
References
0
Case No. 2015-2609 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Gl Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by GL Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee of Dwayne O. Ferguson, against Allstate Insurance Company regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, had initially denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint due to alleged excessive charges. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, found that Allstate Insurance Company failed to demonstrate timely mailing of denial of claim forms, thus precluding their defense. However, GL Acupuncture, P.C. also failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment. Therefore, the Appellate Term modified the order by denying the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, while affirming the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentDenial of claimTimely mailingStandard office practiceInsurance defenseAppellate reviewPrima facie caseExcess workers' compensation fee scheduleAssignee claims
References
4
Case No. 06 Civ. 3994(DC)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2007

BRENTWOOD PAIN & REHABILITATION SERV. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

The case examines whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) charges fall under the same discounted fee schedule rules as x-rays for multiple body parts under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, MRI service providers, contested the application of Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Radiology Ground Rule 3 to MRIs, arguing the rule specifically mentions only x-rays. Defendant insurance companies, supported by interpretations from the Department of Insurance (DOI) and WCB, asserted the rule's applicability to MRIs. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the insurers, deferring to the agencies' "rational" and "reasonable" interpretation. The court concluded that applying the discount rule to MRIs aligns with the No-Fault Law's objectives to control costs and prevent fraud, thus denying the providers' motions.

No-Fault InsuranceMRIX-rayFee ScheduleRadiologyWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceAgency DeferenceStatutory InterpretationSummary Judgment
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 14,660 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