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. 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. ADJ2001631
Regular
Dec 05, 2011

SALVADOR AGUAYO, JR. vs. AMERICAN GOLD CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant, Salvador Aguayo, Jr., and defendant American Gold Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that awarded applicant's counsel $770 for attorney's fees related to discovery necessitated by the defendant's prohibited ex parte communications with medical evaluators. While affirming the fee award, the Board noted that applicant's counsel had previously received an extraordinary 20% fee in a Compromise and Release agreement, which exceeded guideline recommendations. The denial of reconsideration means the $770 award for discovery fees stands, despite the defendant's arguments against it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSalvador AguayoAmerican Gold CorporationArch Insurance CompanyPetition for ReconsiderationWCJAttorney's FeesProhibited Ex Parte CommunicationsCompromise and ReleasePolicy and Procedural Manual
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1989

Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed an appeal concerning age discrimination. The plaintiff, Joseph Murphy, alleged wrongful termination by his employer, American Home Products Corporation, due to age. The trial court had ruled in favor of the defendant, having limited the testimony of a crucial witness for the plaintiff, Mr. Lalicki, whose testimony aimed to demonstrate a discriminatory attitude by a corporate vice-president towards older employees. The appellate court determined that excluding Mr. Lalicki's testimony was an abuse of discretion, as it was highly relevant to prove the employer's discriminatory intent and that the stated reason for discharge was a pretext. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, reinstated the complaint, and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the importance of allowing relevant evidence in discrimination cases.

age discriminationwrongful terminationevidentiary rulingwitness testimonyabuse of discretionemployment lawpretextdiscriminatory intentappellate procedurejury trial
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stratus Services Group, Inc. v. Kash 'N Gold, Ltd.

An employment agency, Stratus Services Group, Inc., failed to conduct required background checks for temporary workers provided to Kash ’N Gold, Ltd. (KNG). Following a burglary at KNG's warehouse by three of these workers, KNG's insurer, American Home Assurance Company, compensated KNG for its losses. American Home, as subrogee, then sued Stratus for breach of contract. Initially, the Supreme Court found a breach but no proximate cause for the damages. However, an appellate court reversed this decision, determining that Stratus's breach was indeed a proximate cause of the damages, and awarded American Home judgment of $241,251.71 against Stratus.

Breach of contractProximate causationSubrogation claimEmployment agency liabilityFailure to conduct background checksWarehouse burglaryInsurance claimAppellate reversalContractual damagesNew York law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers v. Great American Industries, Inc.

This diversity action was brought by the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, representing members of its former Local 204, against Linear, Inc. and its related corporate entities (Great American Industries, Inc., Rubatex Corporation, and Rubatex Holding Corporation). The plaintiff alleged numerous violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement after Linear, Inc. ceased manufacturing operations. The court found Linear, Inc. liable for various employee benefits, including unpaid vacation pay, supplemental unemployment benefits, hospitalization benefits, and pension contributions. Critically, the court determined that Linear, Inc. operated as a mere instrumentality of its parent and grandparent corporations. Consequently, the corporate veil was pierced, holding Great American Industries, Inc., Rubatex Corporation, and Rubatex Holding Corporation liable for Linear, Inc.'s labor obligations.

Labor RelationsCollective BargainingCorporate VeilParent Company LiabilitySubsidiary LiabilityEmployee BenefitsPension DisputeVacation Pay ClaimsSupplemental Unemployment BenefitsFraudulent Transfers
References
24
Case No. GOL 94377, GOL 94518
Regular
Oct 15, 2007

ROSE SAMLER vs. JOHN GRUBE/ROBERT SCOTT, D.D.S., AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DR. JOHN ARGUELLES, NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error, identifying National Surety Corporation as the proper co-defendant instead of "National Insurance Company." The Board affirmed the original award of 33% permanent disability and further medical treatment, but deferred the issues of temporary disability and the EDD lien claim. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company remains responsible for paying benefits, subject to pro rata reimbursement by National Surety Corporation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative injuryHygienistNeckLeft shoulderBackUpper extremitiesBilateral thumbsPermanent disabilityFurther medical treatment
References
1
Case No. 532194
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Marc Trombino

Claimant Marc Trombino, an iron worker, filed a workers' compensation claim in September 2016 for work-related lung conditions, including silicosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, naming FMB Inc. as his employer. The claim was initially indexed against Phoenix Insurance Co., then corrected to Liberty Insurance Corporation after an investigation. Liberty disputed coverage, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie evidence and established the claim, finding an occupational disease and permanent total disability. Liberty appealed, belatedly raising a lack of policy coverage for the work location. The Board remitted the matter for a hearing on coverage, during which Ace American Insurance Company was put on notice. The WCLJ and subsequently the Board invoked the doctrine of laches, barring Liberty from denying coverage due to its inexcusable delay in raising the defense and the resultant prejudice to Ace American. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseSilicosisChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseLaches DoctrineInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate ReviewPrima Facie EvidencePermanent Total DisabilityMedical Expert Testimony
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,465 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