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. 2025 NYSlipOp 06801
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

AmTrust N. Am., Inc. v. Insurance Specialty Group LLC

The plaintiff, AmTrust North America, Inc., appealed an order dismissing parts of its breach of contract claim against Insurance Specialty Group LLC. The dispute stems from a 2010 Managing Producer Agreement where the defendant was to administer an asset protection program for the plaintiff, with fiduciary duties. Plaintiff alleged multiple breaches, including improper underwriting and concealment of issues, which came to light in 2022. The Supreme Court dismissed claims before May 19, 2017, but the Appellate Division modified this by applying equitable estoppel. The appellate court ruled that estoppel could allow most breach of contract claims, except those solely based on the fiduciary duty to disclose, which are not subject to estoppel for time-barred breaches.

Breach of ContractEquitable EstoppelFiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsAsset Protection ProgramUnderwriting GuidelinesInsurance AdministrationConcealmentContinuing Wrong DoctrineAppellate Division
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00836 [235 AD3d 479]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2025

TCS Constr. Corp. v. AmTrust N. Am., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which had denied summary judgment to defendants AmTrust North America, Inc., Wesco Insurance Company, and Morstan General Agency Inc. of New York. The lower court's denial meant that Wesco might have had a duty to defend or indemnify TCS Construction Corp. and Tsurishaddai Matsui. The Appellate Division found that Wesco, the insurer, had no duty to defend or indemnify based on employer's liability and independent contractor exclusions in the commercial general liability (CGL) policy. Furthermore, it ruled that Gabriel Pacheco's injuries were not

Summary judgmentInsurance coverageEmployer's liability exclusionIndependent contractors exclusionCommercial general liability policyEmployers' liability policyWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave injuryDuty to defendDuty to indemnify
References
6
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00646
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2024

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Amtrust N. Am., Inc.

In this subrogation action, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as a no-fault insurer, sought to recover benefits paid to its subrogors who were also seeking workers' compensation benefits from Amtrust North America, Inc. The Supreme Court initially dismissed State Farm's unjust enrichment complaint, asserting the Workers' Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction over the coverage dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order. The court held that the Workers' Compensation Board indeed has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and the causal relationship of medical expenses to the accident. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new determination after a resolution by the Workers' Compensation Board.

SubrogationUnjust EnrichmentNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewMedical ExpensesMotor Vehicle AccidentReimbursementRemittal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2012

Delaney v. Bank of America Corp.

John Delaney sued Bank of America (BoA) alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and breach of an oral contract related to his internal transfer. Delaney claimed his termination was age-discriminatory and that BoA reneged on a promise regarding account assignments and compensation. BoA moved for summary judgment, asserting Delaney failed to show a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the alleged oral contract was too vague, superseded by discretionary bonus policies, and that Delaney was an at-will employee. The court found insufficient admissible evidence for age discrimination, supporting BoA's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (reduction in force based on performance). Additionally, the court ruled the oral agreement lacked definiteness and was overridden by BoA's discretionary bonus plan, and as an at-will employee, Delaney's termination was permissible. Consequently, the court granted BoA's motion for summary judgment on both claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentReduction in ForceAt-Will EmploymentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBut-For CausationOral AgreementDiscretionary Bonus
References
65
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08809
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2017

Dereveneaux v. Hyundai Motor America

Keith Dereveneaux, the plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants Hyundai Motor America, Trade Show Fabrications, Inc., Innocean Worldwide Americas, LLC, and Trade Show Specialists Corp. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal against Hyundai Motor America because the plaintiff failed to oppose the initial motion for relief. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Trade Show Specialists Corp., concluding that the plaintiff was a special employee, which barred his personal injury claim under Workers' Compensation Law. Additionally, summary judgment was affirmed for Trade Show Fabrications, Inc., and Innocean Worldwide Americas, LLC, regarding Labor Law § 200 and § 241 (6) claims, as they demonstrated no control over the work site and the cited Industrial Code provisions were inapplicable. The plaintiff's opposition failed to raise any triable issues of fact.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Premises LiabilityWorksite ControlIndustrial CodeAppellate ProcedureAggrieved Party
References
13
Case No. ADJ15951486, ADJ15951487
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

JEFF CRAIL vs. AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant, Amtrust North America and Hartford Fire Insurance Company, filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a Joint Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued on May 20, 2025. The F&O had ordered the replacement of Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME) Dr. Wiseman due to his failure to properly serve his report. The defendant argued that the court improperly interpreted Administrative Director Rule 31.5(a)(12) and that a Declaration of Readiness (DOR) does not constitute both an objection and a request for a replacement panel. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision to replace Dr. Wiseman. The Board's decision cited its en banc ruling in Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria, reinforcing that a QME's failure to timely issue and serve a report, and engaging in ex parte communication by serving only one party, grants a party the right to seek replacement. The Board also emphasized the informal nature of pleadings in workers' compensation proceedings, as established in Perez v. Chicago Dogs, when addressing the applicant's DOR.

PQMEPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and OrdersAdministrative Director RuleDeclaration of ReadinessIrreparable HarmMandatory Settlement ConferenceOncology PanelQualified Medical ExaminerProof of Service
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2006

Wilson v. Sirius America Insurance

Stephen Wilson, a foreman for a plumbing subcontractor, was injured at a construction site and, along with his wife, sued the general contractor, K.J. Gold, LLC, for Labor Law violations. K.J. Gold's insurer, Sirius America Insurance Company, disclaimed coverage based on an exclusion requiring a prior written indemnification contract between K.J. Gold and the subcontractor, which was absent. After K.J. Gold defaulted in the underlying action, the Wilsons commenced a new action against Sirius America to recover the unsatisfied judgment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the Wilsons, deeming the exclusion void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the insurance exclusion itself did not violate General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, and since K.J. Gold never met the policy's condition of obtaining a written indemnification agreement, Sirius America was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Insurance Coverage DisputeIndemnification AgreementSummary Judgment AppealConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsPolicy ExclusionGeneral Obligations LawContract InterpretationAppellate ReversalThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. v. Transport Workers of America, Local 100

Plaintiffs Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. and Surface Transit, Inc. sued Transport Workers of America, Local 100, Transport Workers of America, and Michael J. Quill for damages alleging a breach of collective bargaining agreements following a 1962 strike. The Union defendants moved for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the arbitration clauses of their agreements. Defendant Michael J. Quill moved to dismiss the action against him, contending that Section 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act does not permit actions against individual union officers. The court found the arbitration clauses sufficiently broad to cover the strike issue and granted the stay of proceedings. Additionally, the court granted Quill's motion to dismiss, citing Supreme Court precedent that such actions are against the union, not its president.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementStrikeTaft-Hartley ActMotion to StayMotion to DismissUnion LiabilityIndividual LiabilityNo-Strike ClauseGrievance Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

VAW of America, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America

Plaintiff VAW of America, Inc. sued United Steelworkers of America to vacate an arbitrator's award. The arbitrator had found that VAW had just cause to discipline an employee, Ms. Krom, but modified her 40.5-hour suspension to 12 hours. VAW argued the arbitrator exceeded authority by modifying the discipline, claiming VAW had exclusive rights under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Union countered that the modification drew its essence from the CBA's 'just cause' provision, allowing the arbitrator to review the proportionality of the penalty. The court, citing precedent, ruled that the 'just cause' provision allowed the arbitrator to assess the reasonableness of the penalty, even without explicit language granting modification power. Consequently, the court denied VAW's motion to vacate and granted the Union's cross-motion to confirm the arbitrator's award.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJust Cause DisciplineArbitrator AuthorityJudicial Review of ArbitrationSummary Judgment MotionEmployee SuspensionInsubordinationContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandhan v. Laboratory Corp. of America

Plaintiff Angela Bandhan sued her former employer, Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp.), alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis recommended granting summary judgment on failure to promote and unequal pay claims, but denying it on wrongful termination and retaliation claims. Both parties filed objections to the Report. District Judge Berman adopted the Magistrate's Report in its entirety, finding no prima facie case for failure to promote or unequal pay, but genuine issues of material fact regarding wrongful termination and retaliation, allowing those claims to proceed to trial. The Court therefore granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and directed the parties to a trial scheduling/settlement conference.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteUnequal PayWrongful Termination
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 1,335 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