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. ADJ1315500 (LAO 0729419) ADJ3939236 (LAO 0729420) ADJ3555051 (LAO 0729421) ADJ1059708 (LAO 0761007)
Regular
Dec 11, 2012

EDUARDO CASTRO vs. AMERICAN CHEM TECH, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

In *Castro v. American Chem Tech*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding an order that removed the case from the calendar. The Board allowed applicant's deposition of Dr. O'Neill to proceed, despite discovery being closed, due to applicant's counsel recently receiving files. Discovery closure was affirmed for all other matters, and the cases were returned to the trial level for a mandatory settlement conference. These consolidated matters have been pending for over sixteen years.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalOff CalendarDiscovery ClosedDepositionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Venue ChangeMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Rescinded OrderTrial Level
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1983

American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. v. North River Insurance

Vincent Yeager, an employee of American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. (American), was injured during employment, leading to a lawsuit against a machine manufacturer, who then brought a third-party action against American for indemnification. American was covered by both a workers’ compensation policy from the State Insurance Fund and a general liability policy from North River Insurance Co. North River disclaimed liability, citing exclusions for workers’ compensation obligations and bodily injury to employees. American then initiated a fourth-party action against North River for contribution. The Supreme Court initially denied American's summary judgment motion and granted North River's cross-motion to dismiss, with leave to replead for indemnification. This court reversed, holding that North River's exclusions do not insulate it from American’s claims because the employer's liability to a third-party tort-feasor for an employee's injury arises from equitable apportionment, not directly from workers' compensation law, thus granting American's motion for summary judgment and denying North River's cross-motion.

Insurance coverage disputeGeneral liability policyWorkers' compensation exclusionContribution between tort-feasorsIndemnificationSummary judgmentFourth-party actionDole-Dow doctrineEquitable apportionmentEmployer liability
References
2
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

Curry v. American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502

Curry, a former Regional Insurance Underwriting Manager for AIG, sued American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502 and American International Life Assurance Co. of New York ("AI Life") under ERISA § 502(a) after her long-term disability benefits were terminated. Curry suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis and diabetes. AI Life initially approved her benefits but later terminated them, alleging she could perform a sedentary occupation, relying on unverified medical responses. The court found AI Life's decision to be arbitrary and capricious due to its reliance on unreliable medical opinions, failure to clarify the record, and disregard for Curry's doctors' reports. Consequently, the court granted Curry's motion for summary judgment, denying the defendants' motion, and ordered the reinstatement of her benefits with prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

ERISALong-term disabilityBenefits terminationArbitrary and capricious standardConflict of interestMedical opinionUnreliable evidenceSummary judgmentOrthopaedic conditionsDiabetes
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1989

Marroquin v. American Trading Transportation Co.

Plaintiff Edmundo S. Marroquin was injured on November 8, 1985, while cleaning a cargo tank aboard the S.S. Washington Trader on the high seas. Marroquin was employed by third-party defendant Stevens Technical Services and the vessel was owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff American Trading Transportation Company. Marroquin initially sued American Trading for negligence and later added a cause of action for unseaworthiness. American Trading then instituted a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Stevens. Stevens moved for summary judgment, arguing that Marroquin's unseaworthiness claim was barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which would also dismiss American Trading's third-party action. The court denied Stevens' motion, finding that Marroquin was not covered by the LHWCA because he was the equivalent of a 'member of a crew' working on the high seas, not a land-based worker in port. Additionally, the LHWCA's geographical scope does not extend to injuries on the high seas during a long international voyage. Therefore, Marroquin could maintain his unseaworthiness claim, and American Trading could seek contribution or indemnification from Stevens.

Maritime LawUnseaworthiness ClaimLHWCA InapplicabilityHigh Seas InjurySeaman StatusThird-Party ActionSummary Judgment MotionVessel Cleaning CrewContribution and Indemnification
References
17
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 v. Great American E&S Insurance

Plaintiff Ethical Culture Fieldston School (ECF) and Tishman, the project manager, were named additional insureds on Solar's general liability policy with Great American. Solar employee, Lisa Best, was injured on site. While Solar filed workers' compensation, notice to Great American about Best's personal injury lawsuit against Tishman and ECF, and Solar's subsequent impleading, was delayed. Tishman and ECF sought a declaratory judgment that Great American was obligated to defend and indemnify them, and Solar cross-claimed. Great American moved for summary judgment, asserting untimely notice. The court found Solar's delay of over a year in notifying Great American was untimely and that Solar's belief of nonliability was unreasonable, especially given its contractual indemnification obligations. Consequently, Great American was not obligated to provide coverage to Solar in the underlying action.

Insurance Coverage DisputeTimely Notice RequirementCondition PrecedentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured StatusConstruction Site Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. D.P. Consulting Corp.

American Home Assurance Company (American), an insurer, commenced a declaratory judgment action against D.E Consulting Corp. (D.E) and AvalonBay Communities, Inc. (AvalonBay). American sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify D.E in an underlying personal injury action, Canteros v AvalonBay Communities, Inc., asserting that no 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 had occurred. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied American's motion for summary judgment on this issue. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment. The appellate panel concluded that D.E had successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether Canteros sustained a 'grave injury,' thereby preventing a ruling, as a matter of law, that American had no potential obligation to indemnify D.E under its policy.

Declaratory judgmentIndemnificationContributionGrave injuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary judgmentInsurance policyEmployer liabilityTriable issue of factAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibson v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

John Gibson, a seaman, suffered a heart attack in 1970 while working aboard the vessel Seawitch. His wife, Anna Gibson, subsequently initiated an action in February 1977 against his employer, American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, claiming damages for loss of consortium. American Export sought to dismiss her complaint, contending that spouses of injured seamen lacked a claim for loss of consortium under general maritime law at the time, and that the landmark Supreme Court decision in American Export Lines v Alvez (1980), which established this right, should not be retroactively applied. The court thoroughly reviewed the evolution of maritime law concerning loss of consortium, referencing key decisions such as Moragne (1970), Sea-Land Servs. v Gaudet (1974), and Alvez (1980). Ultimately, the court denied American Export's motion, ruling that the Alvez decision should be applied retroactively to cases like Mrs. Gibson's, where the plaintiff was actively challenging existing legal precedents prior to the Alvez ruling.

RetroactivityLoss of ConsortiumMaritime LawSeaman's RightsPersonal InjuryGeneral Maritime LawSpousal ClaimsFederal Maritime LawAppellate ReviewTort Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1985

Spoon v. American Agriculturalist, Inc.

Celeste Spoon, an assistant circulation manager, filed a lawsuit against her employer, American Agriculturalist, Inc., and her supervisor, Nelson Dunham, alleging sexual harassment including vulgar language and inappropriate physical contact. Spoon reported these incidents to the company's president, Albert Hoefer, Jr., on two occasions. The Supreme Court at Special Term initially granted American's motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing claims related to Executive Law § 296, vicarious liability, and a derivative claim by Spoon's husband, arguing that the employer lacked sufficient notice of the harassment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that Spoon's conflicting deposition testimony and affidavit created a triable issue of fact regarding whether American was aware of Dunham's conduct and failed to take appropriate corrective action. Consequently, the appellate court reinstated the dismissed causes of action and the derivative claim, asserting that the doctrine of respondeat superior could apply given the employer's potential knowledge and inaction.

Sexual HarassmentEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentExecutive LawWorkers' CompensationNotice RequirementIntentional TortLoss of Consortium
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,135 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