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

NECA Ins., Ltd. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.

Plaintiff NIL Insurance Ltd., a reinsurance company, initiated a diversity action against National Union Fire Insurance Co. and Buchanan Management Company. NIL sought recovery for moneys paid in connection with a personal injury settlement by National Union and punitive damages, alleging negligence, bad faith, and breach of contract related to settlement discussions and payment. National Union and Buchanan moved to compel arbitration of these claims. The court granted National Union's motion, finding that the reinsurance agreement's arbitration clause broadly covered all disputes, including those concerning negligence and recklessness, which could be established within arbitration. The action was dismissed without prejudice, pending the outcome of the arbitration.

ReinsuranceArbitration ClauseContract InterpretationNegligence ClaimsBad FaithBreach of ContractSettlement DisputesFederal JurisdictionMotion to Compel ArbitrationDismissal Without Prejudice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Communications Workers of America v. New York Telephone Co.

The Union initiated a lawsuit to compel the Company to arbitrate a grievance concerning temporary promotions. Both parties moved for summary judgment, with the core dispute revolving around the arbitrability of promotional issues under their collective bargaining agreement. The Company argued that Section 9.08 of the agreement explicitly excluded such grievances from arbitration. The court, referencing Supreme Court precedents like United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior and Gulf Navigation Co. and Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., found that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act does not compel arbitration where the collective bargaining agreement clearly indicates an intent to exclude certain disputes. Given the unambiguous exclusionary language in Section 9.08, the court concluded that the parties did not intend for disputes regarding promotions to be subject to arbitration. Consequently, the Company's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Union's action.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentExclusionary ClauseSection 301 LMRASeniorityPromotionsContract InterpretationFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 1995

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. State Insurance Fund

Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union) initiated a declaratory judgment action against The State Insurance Fund (SIF) to recover defense and settlement costs. These costs were expended on behalf of Regional Scaffolding and Hoisting Co., Inc., a mutually insured party in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court initially denied National Union's motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of SIF. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the antisubrogation rule did not apply in this context. Consequently, it determined that National Union and SIF were co-insurers for Regional Scaffolding's common-law liability. The court granted National Union's motion for summary judgment in part, declaring SIF's duty to reimburse National Union for one-half of the reasonable settlement and defense costs, and remanded for a trial to ascertain these amounts.

Antisubrogation RuleDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeCo-Insurer LiabilityDefense Costs ReimbursementSettlement CostsEmployer's LiabilityComprehensive General LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 1979

Wm. Chalson & Co. v. Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond & Watchcase Workers Union Local No. 1

The plaintiff, Wm. Chalson & Co., Inc., sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond & Watchcase Workers Union Local No. 1 to prevent arbitration. Chalson argued it was not bound by a collective bargaining agreement signed on March 21, 1979, as it had unilaterally withdrawn from the multi-employer bargaining unit on March 16, 1979, citing an alleged impasse in negotiations. The Union contended that Chalson's withdrawal was ineffective and sought to compel arbitration under the new agreement. The court determined that the issue of whether Chalson had a duty to arbitrate should be decided by the court, not an arbitrator. Although the court assumed Chalson's withdrawal was an unjustified unfair labor practice due to a lack of actual impasse, it concluded that Chalson's agency with the Association was terminated. Therefore, the Association lacked authority to bind Chalson to the new agreement. Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff, permanently enjoining arbitration between the parties under the March 21, 1979 contract, without prejudice to the NLRB's statutory jurisdiction.

Labor disputecollective bargainingarbitrationcontract terminationmulti-employer bargainingunfair labor practicedeclaratory judgmentinjunctive reliefagency lawNLRB jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 1981

Rutherford v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

This case involves an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitrator's award. The petitioner, an employee of Brooklyn Union Gas Company, was injured during employment and received workers' compensation and no-fault benefits. After settling a third-party action, the workers' compensation insurer, Utilities Mutual Insurance Co., obtained a lien on the recovery. The core issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement from the no-fault carrier for the lien amount, based on the Court of Appeals' decision in Grello v Daszykowski and subsequent amendments to Workers' Compensation Law § 29. An arbitrator found in favor of the petitioner, but the Supreme Court vacated the award, arguing Grello should not be applied retroactively. The appellate court reversed this decision, confirming the arbitrator's award by citing the applicable statute and regulation.

Arbitration awardworkers' compensation lienno-fault benefitsInsurance Law §671Workers' Compensation Law §29Grello v Daszykowskiretroactivityappellate reviewstatutory interpretationinsurance regulation
References
3
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06377
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2014

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, granting National Union Fire Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment against JRP Contracting, Inc. The court declared that National Union had no duty to defend or indemnify JRP in an underlying personal injury action. National Union successfully argued that the plaintiff's alleged injuries (ligament and meniscal tears) were not "grave injuries" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Additionally, National Union's policy contained an exclusion for "liability assumed under a contract," further absolving it from the contractual indemnification claim. JRP's claim of prejudice due to National Union's withdrawal from defense was also rejected, as National Union had expressly reserved its rights.

Summary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyInsurance Policy ExclusionContractual IndemnificationPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

B. C. Manufacturing Co. v. Reiff

The case concerns an injunction sought by B. C. Manufacturing Co. Inc., a nonunion dress contractor, against Local 143 of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and its manager, Louis Reiff, to stop picketing of its Mount Vernon, N.Y., factory. The picketing began after a general strike in March 1958, initially seeking a union agreement and later urging employees to join the union. The court found evidence of abusive and disorderly conduct during the picketing, including massing, blocking ingress/egress, pushing, and verbal abuse. However, the court denied a general injunction against all peaceful picketing, ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to federal preemption under the Taft-Hartley Act, as the plaintiff's interstate commerce activities fall under NLRB's exclusive purview. Instead, a limited injunction was granted, restricting the number of pickets, prohibiting interference with employees, and forbidding abusive language.

Labor DisputePicketingInjunctionTaft-Hartley ActNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Interstate CommerceUnfair Labor PracticeUnionizationStranger PicketingCoercion
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 21,493 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