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. 2017 NY Slip Op 04774 [151 AD3d 504]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2017

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. U.S. Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute where Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Artimus Construction Corp., Inc., as subrogees, sought coverage from U.S. Underwriters Insurance Company. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from relitigating insurance coverage issues because these matters had been decided in a prior declaratory judgment action. The majority concluded that Nationwide's subrogor, Artimus, and Artimus's subrogor, Armadillo, had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the coverage issues previously. Furthermore, the court held that the doctrine of res judicata also barred the claims, applying a transactional analysis which dictates that all claims arising from the same transaction that could have been raised in prior litigation are precluded.

Insurance CoverageSubrogationCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentPersonal Injury ActionEmployer Liability ExclusionLate Notice of ClaimPrivity
References
12
Case No. 6:09-CV-853
Regular Panel Decision

Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.

This case details a dispute between Utica Mutual Insurance Company (Utica) and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (FFIC) concerning reinsurance contracts, with Utica seeking substantial damages for alleged breach of contract and bad faith. FFIC counterclaimed for rescission of the reinsurance agreements. A central contention revolves around whether Utica's primary liability policies issued to Goulds from 1966-1972 contained aggregate limits for bodily injury, a condition critical to triggering FFIC's reinsurance obligations. The court dismissed Utica's bad faith claim (Count II) and its request for declaratory relief (Count III) but denied all other motions for summary judgment by both parties, including those regarding the 'follow the settlement' doctrine, FFIC's rescission counterclaim, and the timeliness of notice. Consequently, the core breach of contract claim (Count I) and FFIC's counterclaims for rescission are slated to proceed to trial.

Reinsurance DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentFollow the Settlement DoctrineAggregate LimitsBad Faith ClaimRescissionNotice of ClaimInsurance LawAsbestos Claims
References
56
Case No. CA 11-00156
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2011

MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND

Plaintiff, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, initiated an action against New York State Insurance Fund to recover funds related to an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. The core issue was the defendant's obligation to indemnify Jerrick Waterproofing Co., Inc. for a construction accident. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, which the defendant appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendant was indeed obligated to provide unlimited coverage to Jerrick Waterproofing, despite a policy exclusion, as a common-law right to indemnity existed. Consequently, the plaintiff's excess coverage was not triggered.

Insurance disputeWorkers' CompensationIndemnificationExcess coverageSummary judgmentAppellate reviewNew York lawEmployer liabilityPolicy exclusionCommon-law indemnity
References
4
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08848 [123 AD3d 933]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2014

Public Service Mutual Insurance v. Fiduciary Insurance Co. of America

This case involves an appeal by Fiduciary Insurance Company of America (appellant) from an order and judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (respondent), as subrogee of Peter Daversa. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the petition to confirm and denied Fiduciary's cross-petition to vacate the arbitration award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order, finding it merged into the judgment, and affirmed the judgment. The court applied closer judicial scrutiny to the compulsory arbitration award, determining that the arbitrator's decision had ample evidentiary support and was not arbitrary or capricious. The appellant's contentions regarding proximate cause, burden of proof, and prejudgment interest were found to be without merit.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationInsurance SubrogationAppellate ReviewJudicial ScrutinyEvidentiary SupportArbitrator's DeterminationProximate CausationBurden of ProofPrejudgment InterestCPLR Article 75 Proceeding
References
8
Case No. CA 13-00513
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2014

DRYDEN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. GOESSL, STANLEY

Plaintiff Dryden Mutual Insurance Company initiated an action seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Stanley Goessl in an underlying tort action, which arose from a fire during plumbing work. Defendants AP Daino & Plumbing, Inc. and its insurer, The Main Street America Group, also denied coverage for Goessl. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Dryden Mutual and against Main Street America Group. However, the Appellate Division reversed this judgment, declaring that Dryden Mutual is obligated to defend and indemnify Goessl and reimburse his attorney's fees, based on his status as a sole proprietor insured by them. Conversely, The Main Street America Group was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Goessl, as he was deemed an independent contractor, not an employee of AP Daino, according to their policy's plain meaning and their business arrangement. Sconiers, J., dissented, arguing that the trial court's finding of Goessl as an employee should have been upheld.

Insurance coverage disputeBusiness liabilityIndependent contractor classificationEmployee statusDuty to indemnifyDuty to defendSubcontracting agreementDeclaratory judgment actionAppellate review of judgmentContract interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2007

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania

This case concerns an appeal regarding an insurance dispute between Liberty Mutual (excess insurer) and AIG (primary insurer) over a $1.5 million settlement payment in a personal injury action. The underlying action involved an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation, a subcontractor, suing the project's owner and construction manager under the Labor Law. AIG, General's primary insurer, had refused to participate in the defense or settlement. The Supreme Court's order, which limited plaintiff's recovery to $500,000, was modified on appeal. The appellate court increased AIG's potential liability limit to $1,000,000, pending a determination of whether the employee sustained a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court affirmed that AIG, as a primary insurer, must exhaust its coverage before Liberty's excess coverage is implicated and is not entitled to apportionment with the excess insurer.

Insurance Coverage DisputeExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceIndemnificationSubrogationWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentPolicy LimitsApportionment of Liability
References
6
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
Dec 22, 1992

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurer's claim for contribution. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, the liability insurer for Trio Drug Corporation and additional insured 58 Realopp Corporation, sought contribution from Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, Trio's workers' compensation carrier. Aetna had settled an underlying injury action where it represented both Realopp and Trio, and subsequently sued for 50% of the settlement amount. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Aetna's summary judgment motion and the granting of Greater New York's cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court applied the anti-subrogation rule, finding that Aetna could not assert a subrogated claim against its own insured, Trio, due to potential conflicts of interest arising from its dual representation in the underlying action.

anti-subrogation ruleconflict of interestsummary judgmentcontributionworkers' compensationliability insurancethird-party claimcommon law indemnityappellate reviewinsurer dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This case concerns a dispute between insurance carriers following a workers' compensation claim. Douglas K. Ellsmore was injured while unloading a hospital bed when Shirley S. Miller, insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, backed her car into him. Ellsmore's employer's workers' compensation carrier, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, paid over $65,000 in benefits and then sought reimbursement from State Farm via a loss transfer claim and demanded arbitration under Insurance Law § 5105. State Farm initiated a special proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, arguing that Aetna's claim lacked legal basis. Special Term denied the stay, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The court clarified that the "for hire" provision in Insurance Law § 5105 modifies "vehicle," limiting its application to vehicles hired for transporting people (like taxis) or livery vehicles for property, and does not extend to commercial deliveries by an owner's vehicle. Consequently, Aetna was not entitled to recover compensation payments under this statute.

Insurance LawWorkers' CompensationAutomobile InsuranceLoss Transfer ClaimArbitration StayStatutory Interpretation"For Hire" ClauseCommercial DeliveryVehicle InsuranceFirst-Party Payments
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dryden Mutual Insurance v. Goessl

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute arising from a fire during plumbing work. Plaintiff Dryden Mutual Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify defendant Stanley Goessl, who operated as S&K Plumbing, in an underlying tort action. Dryden claimed Goessl was an employee of AP Daino & Plumbing, Inc., whose insurer, The Main Street America Group (MSA), also disclaimed coverage, asserting Goessl was not their employee. The Supreme Court initially found Dryden not liable and MSA liable, but the Appellate Court reversed this decision. The appellate ruling determined that Dryden Mutual Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify Goessl as a sole proprietor, and MSA is not obligated because Goessl was an independent contractor, not an employee of AP Daino, according to their policy terms.

Insurance coverage disputeDeclaratory judgmentIndependent contractor classificationEmployee statusBusiness general liability policyContractors insurance policyDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyPlumbing businessTort liability
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 14,710 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