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. 23
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company v. Allied Capital Corporation

This case addresses whether an arbitration panel exceeded its authority by reconsidering a "Partial Final Award" in an insurance dispute. The underlying dispute involved Ciena Capital LLC and Allied Capital Corporation seeking coverage from American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) after settling a federal qui tam action. Initially, the arbitration panel issued a partial award, which was later reconsidered and corrected to grant both indemnification and defense costs. AISLIC challenged this reconsideration, arguing the panel was functus officio. The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division ruling, holding that the initial "Partial Final Award" was not truly final because the parties had not mutually agreed to its finality. Consequently, the arbitration panel was deemed to have acted within its authority by reconsidering its initial determination, and the petition to vacate the corrected award was denied.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardReconsiderationArbitrator AuthorityInsurance CoverageIndemnificationDefense CostsQui Tam ActionNew York Court of Appeals
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2010

Gunther v. Capital One, N.A.

Plaintiff Eric Gunther filed a class action against Capital One Bank and Capital One Financial Corporation, alleging improper banking fees. Gunther, a former North Fork Bank customer, became a Capital One Bank account holder after a merger. He claimed Capital One Bank increased fees, including ATM withdrawal and overdraft fees, without proper notice, charged 'Undeliverable Mail Fees,' deceptively marketed 'free checking,' and failed to provide fee schedule notifications. The Court dismissed most of Gunther's breach of contract claims, except for the 'Undeliverable Mail Fees' claim. Claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment were also dismissed. A New York General Business Law § 349 claim was dismissed with leave to replead. The Court denied dismissal for the declaratory judgment claim against Capital One Bank. All claims against Capital One Financial were dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish direct or indirect liability through corporate veil piercing.

Consumer Class ActionBanking FeesBreach of ContractMotion to DismissCorporate Veil PiercingTruth in Savings Act (TISA)Unjust EnrichmentDeclaratory JudgmentStanding to SueNew York General Business Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07194 [167 AD3d 142]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Allied Capital Corp.

This appeal concerns an arbitration dispute between American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) and Allied Capital Corporation regarding insurance coverage for a $10.1 million settlement. An arbitration panel initially issued a Partial Final Award (PFA) on liability but later reconsidered and reversed its decision, leading to a corrected PFA and a final award. AISLIC petitioned to vacate these subsequent awards and confirm the original PFA. The Appellate Division, First Department, ruled that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority under the functus officio doctrine by reconsidering its prior final determination on liability. Consequently, the corrected PFA and the final award were vacated, and the original PFA was reinstated.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardVacaturInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrator AuthorityLiabilityDamages
References
32
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00596
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2016

Madison Realty Capital, L.P. v. Scarborough-St. James Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Madison Realty Capital, L.P. against Scarborough-St. James Corporation and others. The Supreme Court, New York County, had previously confirmed the award of $720,204.80 to the plaintiffs, denying the defendants' cross-motion to vacate or modify it. The arbitration award established Madison as the landlord of a shopping center, with annual rent payable to Madison instead of being used for a wraparound mortgage. The court found no basis to overturn the arbitrator's decision, stating it was not a 'totally irrational construction' of the contract and that the arbitrator did not exceed authority. Challenges to rent calculation were deemed unavailing, and a nonparty's intervention was denied due to lack of standing.

Arbitration AwardContract DisputeLandlord-TenantRent CalculationAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewStandingCPLR 7511Pro SeWraparound Mortgage
References
5
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05824 [120 AD3d 601]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2014

Bankdirect Capital Fin. v. Insurance Co. of State of PA

This case involves an action for breach of contract brought by Bankdirect Capital Finance, as assignee of Standard Funding Corp., against the Insurance Company of State of Pa (ISOP). The dispute arose from the financing of insurance premiums for Emivest Aerospace Corporation, which later defaulted and filed for bankruptcy. Bankdirect moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. ISOP cross-moved to stay the action under 11 USC § 362 (a) due to Emivest's bankruptcy, which the Supreme Court granted. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Bankdirect but reversed the grant of a stay to ISOP. The appellate court found that Bankdirect's claim against ISOP, a non-debtor, would not have an immediate adverse economic consequence for Emivest's bankruptcy estate, therefore the automatic stay provisions did not apply to ISOP.

Breach of ContractInsurance PremiumsAssignmentBankruptcy StayAutomatic StaySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation PolicyNew York LawFederal Bankruptcy Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1997

Reeves Bros., Inc. v. Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp.

Reeves Brothers, Inc. (Reeves) sought confirmation of an arbitration award against Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp. (Capital). Capital cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging inadequate disclosure of relationships between two arbitrators, Norman Hackel and Lawrence H. Bober, and Reeves. The underlying dispute involved unpaid invoices for chemically-treated fabric sold by Reeves to Capital. The arbitration, conducted under the General Arbitration Council of the Textile and Apparel Industries (GAC), resulted in a unanimous award in favor of Reeves. Capital challenged the arbitrators' qualifications during the process, but the GAC denied the applications for disqualification. The court, applying Federal Arbitration Law and the 'evident partiality' standard, found that Capital failed to demonstrate sufficient partiality or prejudice to vacate the award. Therefore, the court granted Reeves' motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied Capital's cross-motion to vacate it.

ArbitrationArbitrator DisclosureEvident PartialityVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCommercial DisputeTextile IndustryUCC 2-207Federal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1997

Lofthouse v. Paragon Capital Corp.

The New York County Supreme Court affirmed a judgment that confirmed an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff and denied defendant Paragon Capital Corporation’s cross-motion to vacate it. The plaintiff had initially sued Paragon Capital Corporation and co-defendant Falcone. After the court compelled arbitration for all claims, Paragon proceeded without appealing this decision, despite its argument that the claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The arbitrators subsequently ruled against the defendants. The Supreme Court concluded that Paragon waived its right to challenge the arbitration award by not appealing the initial decision to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AwardWaiver of AppealWorkers' Compensation BarJudicial ReviewConfirmation of AwardVacate AwardEmployment DisputeSecurities IndustryNew York LawAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ3180323 (VNO 0425253) ADJ3602025 (VNO 0425255) ADJ4336300 (VNO 0429778) ADJ1492342 (VNO 0362819)
Regular
Mar 02, 2016

PAUL NEYER vs. MISSION LINEN SUPPLY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, ARROWPOINT CAPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed well beyond the jurisdictional 20-day limit after the December 16, 2015 Findings and Award. Arrowpoint Capital's Petition for Reconsideration was also dismissed as moot due to a subsequent amendment by the arbitrator addressing their concerns about bill review expenses. The Board found CIGA's petition was also procedurally defective for failing to serve the Workers' Compensation Arbitrator. Therefore, both petitions were dismissed.

California Workers CompensationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMission Linen SupplyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAArrowpoint CapitalSecurity Insurance Company of HartfordPaul NeyerFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03158 [238 AD3d 635]
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2025

Matter of Jefferies LLC v. IsZo Capital LP

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment confirming an arbitration award of $1,045,250 in favor of Jefferies LLC against IsZo Capital LP. IsZo Capital sought to vacate the award, arguing that arbitrators exceeded their power by violating federal bankruptcy court orders confirming Chapter 11 reorganization plans and that the award was preempted by the Bankruptcy Code. The court rejected this, finding 11 USC § 1141 (a) inapplicable as neither party was bound by its provisions. The court also rejected IsZo Capital's claim that the arbitration panel's order to remove website materials constituted a prior restraint on free speech, as it enforced a contractual agreement prohibiting the use of Jefferies LLC's name or logo without consent. The court concluded that enforcing such agreements does not violate public policy against prior restraint. Furthermore, IsZo Capital's challenge to the legal fee award was not preserved for appellate review.

Arbitration AwardVacatur of AwardArbitrator's PowersFederal Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 Reorganization PlansPreemptionFirst Amendment RightsPrior RestraintContractual AgreementsLegal Fees
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,674 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