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. 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. 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

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waite v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff Basil Waite, a baggage handler for AMR Services Corporation (an independent contractor for American Airlines), suffered a personal injury to his arm on November 18, 1995, when it got caught in a conveyor belt at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He filed a personal injury action against American Airlines, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of duty to maintain a safe premises. American Airlines moved for summary judgment. The court considered theories of recovery including assumed specific duty, common law/statutory duty to maintain safe premises, common law/statutory duty to control work, and vicarious liability for inherently dangerous work. The court found that American Airlines did not breach any duties and the activity was not inherently dangerous. Therefore, American's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityNegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityBaggage Handling AccidentFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Labor LawVicarious Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2002

Zurich American Insurance v. Luis Bastos Construction

Zurich American Insurance Co. initiated an action seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Luis Bastos Construction, Inc. in an underlying personal injury lawsuit filed by Hermilo Cruz. Cruz, an employee of Bastos, sustained injuries in New York while working on a job that was not related to any work being performed in New Jersey. Zurich's insurance policy provided employers' liability coverage specifically for claims arising from accidents in New Jersey or those incidental to New Jersey operations. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted Zurich's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Zurich had no obligation to defend or indemnify Bastos. Defendant A.E Roofing & Siding Corp. appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, concluding that the terms of the policy were clear and unambiguous.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance CoverageEmployers' LiabilityWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentPolicy InterpretationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewJurisdictionNew York Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chandler v. AMR American Eagle Airline

Plaintiff Kenton Chandler, a part-time catering clerk, sued AMR American Eagle Airline, alleging failure to accommodate a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), age discrimination and hostile work environment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and retaliation. Chandler claimed that his job-related back and leg injuries constituted a disability and that the defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation. He also asserted claims of disparate treatment in work assignments and compensation due to his age, alongside a hostile work environment characterized by age-related comments and threats. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding that several allegations were not administratively exhausted. Furthermore, the court determined that Chandler failed to establish a prima facie case for disability under the ADA, age discrimination, hostile work environment, or a causal connection for his retaliation claim.

Disability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdministrative ExhaustionADA ClaimADEA ClaimWorkplace DiscriminationEmployment Law
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McClam v. American Axle & Manufacturing

Claimant suffered two right shoulder injuries, one in 1997 while working for CF Motorfreight, and another in 2000 while working for American Axle & Manufacturing. After the second injury, American Axle sought apportionment of the workers' compensation award, which was initially granted by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but limited to medical treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently determined that any apportionment should be deferred until a finding of permanency is made. American Axle appealed this deferral, arguing against the limitation of apportionment. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's decision was an unappealable interlocutory decision, thus avoiding piecemeal review of workers’ compensation issues.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentShoulder InjurySchedule Loss of UseInterlocutory AppealDeferral of AwardPermanency FindingBoard ReviewMedical ExaminationEmployer Liability
References
6
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 8,828 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