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. CA 10-00545
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

HAHN AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (plaintiff) initiated a breach of contract action against American Zurich Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendants), contending that bills issued under insurance contracts were time-barred. Defendants counterclaimed for damages stemming from plaintiff's alleged breach of these contracts. The Supreme Court partially granted plaintiff's cross-motion, deeming counterclaims for debts arising over six years prior as time-barred. Concurrently, it permitted defendants to utilize a $400,000 letter of credit to satisfy any outstanding debt, including those deemed time-barred. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the use of the letter of credit for time-barred debts, reasoning that the statute of limitations only bars the remedy, not the underlying obligation. The court also affirmed that defendants' counterclaims for debts over six years old were time-barred, as the right to demand payment accrued earlier. Finally, the court modified the order to dismiss plaintiff's second through fourth causes of action. A dissenting opinion argued that the counterclaims were not time-barred, asserting that the cause of action accrued upon demand and refusal of payment, not merely when the right to demand payment existed.

Breach of contractInsurance contractsStatute of limitationsLetter of creditSummary judgmentAppellate reviewContract interpretationTime-barred claimsAccrual of cause of actionRetrospective premiums
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. American Re-Insurance Co.

The case revolves around a dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company and American Re-Insurance Company regarding a pollution exclusion clause in a reinsurance policy. National Union sought reimbursement from American Re after settling claims where employees were exposed to metalworking fluids. American Re denied coverage, arguing its pollution exclusion applied. The court, applying Ohio law, found American Re's pollution exclusion ambiguous due to its broad language and its intended purpose of covering environmental contamination. Consequently, American Re's motion for summary judgment was denied, and National Union's motion to strike American Re's defense was granted, requiring American Re to "follow the fortunes" of National Union.

ReinsurancePollution Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationFollow the Fortunes DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAmbiguity in ContractsOhio State LawDiversity JurisdictionIndustrial Contamination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fulton Boiler Works, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance

Fulton Boiler Works, Inc., filed an action against several insurance companies regarding defense and indemnification for thousands of asbestos claims. The court addressed multiple pending motions for summary judgment, focusing on the proper allocation of indemnity costs among the liable parties, Fulton's obligation for uninsured years, the applicability of equitable estoppel against insurers, and Travelers' specific obligations concerning notice of claims and disclaimers. The court ruled that a pro rata allocation of indemnity costs is appropriate, with Fulton liable for periods it was uninsured. Equitable estoppel was deemed inapplicable to bar insurers from seeking contribution, and Travelers was found to have received proper notice for many claims and is barred from disclaiming coverage due to untimely disclaimers. This order, along with a previous one, sets the 'ground rules' for resolving past, pending, and future asbestos claims.

Asbestos LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeIndemnity AllocationSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelNotice ProvisionsDisclaimer of CoveragePro Rata AllocationInjury-in-factComprehensive General Liability Policy
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1995

Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.

This case addresses a dispute between Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company (Wausau) and Continental Casualty Company (Continental), along with The Hartford Insurance Group. Wausau, as the employer's liability carrier for H. Sand & Company, successfully argued that a third-party action by Slattery-Argrett, subrogor of Continental, against H. Sand & Company, constituted an impermissible subrogation claim by an insurer against its own insured. The underlying matter involved a personal injury sustained by an employee of H. Sand & Company. Continental had initially disclaimed coverage for Sand in the third-party action. The Supreme Court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, declaring the subrogation action a violation of public policy and awarding Wausau damages. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, distinguishing the present case from prior rulings like *North Star Reins. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co.*, and emphasizing the distinction between claims for indemnification and contribution within insurance policy exclusions.

Subrogation ClaimInsurance Coverage DisputeIndemnification vs. ContributionPublic Policy in InsuranceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityGeneral Liability InsuranceExcess Liability InsuranceConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
9
Case No. ADJ8002816, ADJ8316468
Regular
Oct 05, 2016

LORENZO TOSCANO CORONA vs. KOOSHAREM, doing business as SELECT STAFFING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION (CIGA), ULLICO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, RSI HOME PRODUCTS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over workers' compensation coverage where applicant Lorenzo Toscano Corona was injured, allegedly while employed through a staff leasing arrangement between Koosharem (Select Staffing) and RSI Home Products. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address arguments by ACE American Insurance Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company that their policies excluded coverage for the applicant. The Board rescinded the prior decision due to the arbitrator's failure to adequately document the proceedings and admitted exhibits as required by law. The matter is returned to the arbitrator to create a proper record and evaluate whether ACE and Travelers' policies contained valid exclusions for the applicant's injuries, considering relevant insurance code provisions and endorsements.

Staff leasingGeneral employerSpecial employerJoint and several liabilityOther insuranceInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)Hold harmless clauseWCAB Rule 10566Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp.Labor Code section 3602(d)
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2008

Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau

This class action for declaratory judgment addresses complex insurance coverage disputes arising from asbestos-related personal injury claims against Robert A. Keasbey Company. Plaintiffs, Continental Casualty Company and American Casualty Company, sought declarations on the interpretation of their general liability and excess insurance policies. The court made various rulings, including that asbestos exposures trigger coverage, that pollution exclusions do not bar coverage, and that class defendants are not subject to certain insurer defenses like laches or statute of limitations. The decision also clarified per-occurrence limits and the scope of coverage for specific excess policies, ultimately outlining the obligations of the insurers for the ongoing asbestos litigation.

Asbestos LitigationInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory Judgment ActionProducts Hazard CoveragePremises Operations CoverageClass Action LawsuitInsurance Policy InterpretationPollution Exclusion ClauseNotice of OccurrenceStatute of Limitations Defense
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atlantic Casualty Insurance v. Value Waterproofing, Inc.

Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Value Waterproofing, Inc. in an underlying breach of contract and negligence lawsuit. Value counterclaimed, requesting a declaration that Atlantic Casualty was required to defend and indemnify. The court granted Atlantic Casualty's request, finding that Value failed to provide timely notice of the claim, thereby prejudicing Atlantic Casualty's investigation capabilities. Additionally, the court ruled that Value's work on a commercial property was not covered by its residential-only roofing insurance policy, further justifying the denial of coverage.

Insurance disputeBreach of contractNegligenceDeclaratory judgmentTimely noticeCoverage exclusionCommercial General LiabilityResidential roofingPolicy interpretationPrejudice
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levin v. Intercontinental Casualty Insurance

This case addresses whether a pre-answer motion to dismiss filed by an 'unauthorized foreign or alien' insurance carrier constitutes a 'pleading' under Insurance Law § 1213 (c), thereby requiring the carrier to post a bond. The New York State Superintendent of Insurance, as liquidator of Ideal Mutual Insurance Company, sued Intercontinental Casualty Insurance Company, a Cayman Islands carrier, for reinsurance proceeds. Intercontinental moved to dismiss on Statute of Limitations and documentary evidence grounds without posting a bond. The Supreme Court ordered a bond, which Intercontinental failed to provide, leading to a judgment against it. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that such motions, which address the merits of the case, fall within the definition of a 'pleading' for the purpose of ensuring funds are available to satisfy any potential judgment.

Insurance Law § 1213 (c)Unauthorized InsurerBond RequirementPleading DefinitionMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsDocumentary EvidenceReinsurance AgreementLiquidation ProceedingForeign Carrier
References
2
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06060
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2014

Key Fat Corp. v. Rutgers Casualty Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurer's obligation to reimburse attorney's fees. Key Fat Corp. and Seneca Insurance Company sued Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company after Rutgers disclaimed coverage to Key Fat's indemnitee, Bando Construction, Inc., in an underlying personal injury action. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, which found Rutgers Casualty estopped from disclaiming coverage because it failed to provide timely notice to Key Fat Corp. as required by Insurance Law § 3420 (d)(2). The court ruled that this provision applies to defense costs incurred in connection with an underlying personal injury action, thus obligating Rutgers Casualty to reimburse Key Fat Corp. for attorney's fees and litigation costs.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageAttorney's FeesLitigation CostsPersonal Injury ActionTimely NoticeEstoppelCommercial General Liability PolicyContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law Indemnification
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 1979

Gross Veneer Co. v. American Mutual Insurance

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term in St. Lawrence County, which granted plaintiff, Gross Veneer Company, Inc., partial summary judgment. The dispute arose from a manufacturer’s blanket crime policy issued by defendant, American Mutual Insurance Companies, insuring against employee dishonesty. Plaintiff sought to recover funds embezzled by Chester Shockley, whom it alleged was an employee. The central issue was whether Shockley met the policy’s three-pronged definition of an 'employee,' which required compensation by the insured, the insured's right to govern and direct, and not being a broker or agent. The appellate court found that Special Term improperly relied on unsupported explanations regarding Shockley's compensation by Litchfield Park Corporation and failed to address whether this arrangement affected plaintiff's right to control Shockley or if Shockley acted as plaintiff's agent. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

employee dishonestyinsurance policysummary judgmentcontract interpretationemployment definitionappellate reviewcompensationright to controlcorporate relationsembezzlement
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,343 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