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

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
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. 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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of North America v. Norris

This nonjury trial concerns an automobile accident where claimants Gladys M. Norris and her daughter Lisa were injured by a stolen Cadillac owned by Arc Leasing Corp. and insured by American Transit Insurance Company. The core issue was whether American Transit properly disclaimed coverage given its failure to provide written notice. The court, citing Insurance Law § 167(8) and precedent like Zappone v Home Ins. Co., determined that a denial of coverage based on lack of permissive use (due to a stolen vehicle) is akin to a policy exclusion, thus requiring written notice. American Transit's failure to provide such notice, even if claimants had actual knowledge, precluded it from asserting the 'stolen car' defense. Consequently, the petitioner's application for a permanent stay of arbitration was granted, and American Transit was ordered to afford coverage to Arc Leasing within policy limits.

Automobile AccidentInsurance Coverage DisputeDisclaimer of CoverageLack of Permissive UseStolen VehicleUninsured Motorist ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActionWaiver of DefenseStatutory Notice RequirementPolicy Exclusion Interpretation
References
10
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03815 [139 AD3d 497]
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2016

Mt. Hawley Insurance v. American States Insurance

Mt. Hawley Insurance Company and other plaintiffs, Chatsworth Builders, LLC and 537 West 27th Street Owners, LLC, initiated a declaratory judgment action against J&R Glassworks, Inc. for breach of its obligation to procure insurance related to a construction project. J&R Glassworks, Inc. failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a default judgment. J&R's subsequent motion to vacate this default judgment was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial, clarifying that the default judgment was limited solely to the claim regarding the breach of the obligation to procure insurance, as agreements to indemnify are distinct from agreements to procure insurance.

Default JudgmentVacate DefaultInsurance ObligationBreach of ContractContractual IndemnificationProcure InsuranceAppellate ReviewConstruction ProjectSubcontractorDeclaratory Judgment
References
3
Case No. 2012 NY Slip Op 30642(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2012

Markel Insurance v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance

Markel Insurance Company and New Empire Group, Ltd. (NEG) appealed an order dismissing their claims for legal malpractice and common-law indemnification against Rebore Thorpe & Pisarello, P.C. The claims originated from an underlying personal injury action where Rebore represented the American Gardens defendants, who faced an insurance coverage disclaimer by American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (AGLIC) due to alleged untimely notice. Markel, acting on behalf of NEG, contributed to the settlement of the underlying action following AGLIC's disclaimer. The Supreme Court dismissed the claims, reasoning that the American Gardens defendants suffered no ascertainable damages from the alleged malpractice and that Markel's payment for indemnification was voluntary. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the complaint failed to establish damages for legal malpractice or a non-voluntary payment necessary for common-law indemnification.

Legal MalpracticeCommon-Law IndemnificationMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Ascertainable DamagesVoluntary Payment DoctrineSubrogationInsurance Coverage DisclaimerTimely NoticeAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2001

American Ref-Fuel Co. of Hempstead v. Resource Recycling, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order in a declaratory judgment action. The original plaintiff, American Ref-Fuel Company of Hempstead, sought a declaration that various insurance companies had a duty to defend and indemnify it in an underlying personal injury action. The appeal specifically addresses the denial of motions by Universal Welding & Engineering and the Nelsen Agency (Universal's insurance broker) to dismiss a sixth cross-claim by Home Insurance for legal expenses, and the granting of Home Insurance's cross-motion for summary judgment on that cross-claim. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Home Insurance, as subrogee of American Ref-Fuel and Resource Recycling, Inc., could recover defense costs from Universal under an indemnification provision in the subcontract. The court distinguished the *Inchaustegui* decision, finding it inapplicable since Home Insurance sought recovery based on contractual indemnification rather than damages for breach of an agreement to procure insurance.

SubrogationIndemnificationDuty to DefendInsurance LawBreach of Agreement to Procure InsuranceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityDefense CostsContractual Indemnification
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance dispute over the duty to defend and indemnify. The plaintiff, Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc., sought a declaratory judgment against Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire, claiming primary insurer obligations in an underlying personal injury action. Stellar, insured by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company, had subcontracted duct work to Serge Duct Design, which was insured by Merchants. Serge was obligated to name Stellar as an additional insured. After a worker's injury and subsequent lawsuit, Merchants disclaimed coverage. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, ruling that Merchants is obligated as the primary insurer to defend Stellar from the time the second amended complaint was served, but not to indemnify Stellar. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an assessment of costs incurred by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company.

Insurance CoverageAdditional Insured StatusDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPrimary InsurerExcess InsurerSummary JudgmentContract LawSubcontract AgreementPersonal Injury Action
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 15,239 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