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

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. 2024 NY Slip Op 04102
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2024

Powerflex Solar, LLC v. Solar PV Pros, LLC

Plaintiff Powerflex Solar, LLC appealed two orders from Supreme Court in Albany County. The first order partially granted motions by defendants Solar PV Pros, LLC (SPVP) and EoS Organization, LLC to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction regarding agreements for solar modules to be delivered to Rhode Island and California, and for failure to state claims for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary and conversion against EoS. The second order adhered to the prior decision upon reargument. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no articulable nexus between the New York agreements and the Rhode Island and California agreements for personal jurisdiction. The court also agreed that plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the Meitus-EoS agreements and failed to state a claim for conversion due to lack of identifiable funds.

Personal JurisdictionContract LawThird-Party BeneficiaryConversionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJurisdictional NexusDelaware LLCCalifornia LawSolar Modules
References
33
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. M2013-00872-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

Zurich American Insurance Company v. State of Tennessee

This case concerns an appeal by Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company challenging Tennessee's calculation of retaliatory tax on foreign insurance companies. The insurance companies disputed the inclusion of six New York workers’ compensation surcharges in the tax calculation, arguing they were passed on to policyholders and not directly imposed on the insurers. The Tennessee Claims Commission initially ruled in favor of the state. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee found that four of the six surcharges should be included in the retaliatory tax calculation, while two (Fire Insurance Fee and Motor Vehicle Law Enforcement/Theft Fund Charges) should not, as they constituted a direct "pass-through" to policyholders. The court also rejected the claimants' constitutional challenges based on due process, Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause, and Uniformity Clause.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance TaxationWorkers' Compensation SurchargesStatutory InterpretationTax Refund ClaimsConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual Protection ClauseFull Faith and CreditCommerce Clause
References
32
Case No. 14-02-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Limited, and Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Limited, D/B/A Village Builders v. Great American Insurance Company, American Dynasty Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Markel American Insurance Company Gerling America Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Westchester Fire Ins Company

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute between homebuilder Lennar Corporation and its CGL insurance carriers over damages caused by defective stucco (EIFS) applied to homes. The court analyzed whether negligently defective construction constitutes an "occurrence" and distinguished between covered costs (repairing actual water damage) and non-covered costs (preventative EIFS replacement, overhead). While affirming summary judgment for several insurers due to unmet self-insured retentions based on individual homes as separate occurrences, the court reversed for American Dynasty and Markel, citing unresolved factual issues regarding "known loss" and policy conditions. Lennar's extra-contractual claims against American Dynasty were ultimately denied for lack of proven damages or statutory violations.

Insurance Policy InterpretationConstruction DefectsCommercial Liability InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimsStucco DefectsDuty to IndemnifySelf-Insured RetentionsKnown Loss PrincipleSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Law
References
96
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1994

Brandon v. American Sterilizer Co.

Genell Brandon sued American Sterilizer Company (AMSCO) for personal injuries caused by toxic chemical exposures, alleging products liability, negligence, deceptive trade practices, and breach of warranty. The trial court directed a verdict for AMSCO on the deceptive trade practices and express warranty claims, but the jury found for Brandon on negligence and products liability. Brandon appealed the directed verdict, the denial of prejudgment interest, a credit awarded to AMSCO for a workers' compensation lien settlement, and the allocation of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rulings on the directed verdict, the credit to AMSCO, and the attorney's fees. However, the judgment was reformed to award Brandon prejudgment interest for the period between the jury's verdict (March 6, 1992) and the date of judgment (July 16, 1992). The court found Brandon was not a 'consumer' under the DTPA and lacked standing for express warranty claims.

Personal InjuryToxic ExposureProducts LiabilityNegligenceDeceptive Trade PracticesExpress WarrantyPrejudgment InterestWorkers' CompensationSubrogationAttorney's Fees
References
27
Case No. No. M2018-01696-COA-R3-CV; No. 15-4-IV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2020

American Board of Craniofacial Pain v. American Board Of Orofacial Pain

This case involves an appeal concerning a failed merger between two professional dental associations, American Board of Craniofacial Pain (ABCP) and American Board of Orofacial Pain (ABOP). ABCP sued ABOP, alleging a breach of an agreement to merge formed through email exchanges and seeking specific performance and damages. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted summary judgment to ABOP, finding no meeting of the minds and thus no enforceable contract. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this decision, concluding that the parties’ objective manifestations showed a lack of mutual assent because an essential term (disposition of intellectual property) was not agreed upon and they intended to reduce the agreement to a formal Memorandum of Understanding, which was never finalized. The court also agreed that specific performance was not an available remedy due to the incompleteness of the purported contract.

Contract DisputeMerger NegotiationsCorporate MergerDental ProfessionMutual AssentSpecific Performance DenialSummary Judgment AffirmationTennessee Court of AppealsContract FormationLack of Agreement
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West American Insurance Co. v. Montgomery

This is the second appeal of a workers' compensation case involving Willie Montgomery and West American Insurance Company. The initial judgment awarded Montgomery 75% permanent partial disability, temporary total disability, and medical expenses. West American appealed this judgment, which was affirmed. Subsequently, a dispute arose over the calculation of interest on the judgment, specifically concerning unaccrued permanent partial disability benefits and unpaid medical benefits. The trial court granted West American's motion to quash execution on the bond, ruling they were not liable for interest on these specific amounts under T.C.A. § 50-6-225(h). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, clarifying that workers' compensation law does not entitle an employee to interest on payments not yet due or on medical benefits paid directly to providers, consistent with T.C.A. § 50-6-204 and § 50-6-225(h).

Workers' CompensationInterest CalculationMedical BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawAppellate ReviewUnaccrued BenefitsJudgment Enforcement
References
4
Case No. 3-92-554-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1994

Genell Brandon and Earl H. Staelin v. American Sterilizer Company

Genell Brandon sued American Sterilizer Company (AMSCO) for personal injuries from toxic chemical exposure, alleging product liability, deceptive trade practices, breach of warranty, negligence, and gross negligence. The trial court directed a verdict for AMSCO on DTPA and express warranty claims, but Brandon won on negligence and product liability. Brandon appealed the directed verdict, denial of prejudgment interest, a credit awarded to AMSCO for a workers' compensation lien settlement, and the allocation of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the directed verdict, the credit to AMSCO, and the allocation of attorney's fees. However, the judgment was reformed to award prejudgment interest to Brandon for the period between the date of verdict and the date of judgment.

Product LiabilityNegligenceDeceptive Trade PracticesExpress WarrantyWorkers' Compensation LienPrejudgment InterestAttorney FeesSubrogationToxic ExposureChemical Injuries
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 5,564 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