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
Jun 26, 2008

6085 Strickland Associates v. Whitmore Group, Ltd.

This case involves an action where the plaintiff sued insurance brokers for negligent failure to procure insurance. The plaintiff alleged that the Genstar policy, intended for a vacant property, should have remained active alongside the Sirius policy, which covered construction-related liabilities. The Genstar policy was cancelled due to unpaid premiums. The plaintiff contended that the brokers had a duty to reinstate the policy or procure replacement coverage. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant brokers' cross-motion, finding no breach of duty. The plaintiff failed to pay the premium after receiving a cancellation notice, and there was no evidence of a specific request for the Genstar policy's renewal or concurrent operation with the Sirius policy. The brokers fulfilled their obligation by securing the Sirius policy.

Negligent failure to procure insuranceInsurance brokersSummary judgmentPolicy cancellationPremium nonpaymentConstruction insuranceLitigation costsDuty of brokerReplacement policyInsurance Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06124 [187 AD3d 1185]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2020

Matter of CEO Bus. Brokers, Inc. v. 1431 Utica Ave. Corp.

This case involves an appeal regarding the confirmation of an arbitration award. CEO Business Brokers, Inc. initiated a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award against 1431 Utica Avenue Corp. and Domenick Landriscina, stemming from a business brokerage agreement. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the petition to confirm the award and denied the cross-motion to vacate it. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the amended judgment. The court found that the arbitration award was not irrational and that the appellants failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that their rights were prejudiced by misconduct.

arbitration awardCPLR article 75vacate arbitration awardconfirm arbitration awardjudicial reviewbusiness brokerage agreementcontract disputeappellate reviewmisconductirrational award
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of Parish

The dissenting opinion argues that the majority erred in dismissing a contractor's negligence claim against a town. The dissent contends the town violated Labor Law § 220 (3-a) (a) by failing to determine worker classifications, which resulted in the contractor incurring damages for underpayment of prevailing wages. It asserts that the statute's legislative intent includes protection for contractors and that denying a negligence cause of action leaves the contractor without an effective remedy for reimbursement. Additionally, the dissent argues against dismissing the unjust enrichment claim. It advocates for the order to be modified, denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and granting, in part, the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability in negligence, remitting the matter for further proceedings on damages and contributory negligence.

NegligenceStatutory DutyLabor LawPrevailing WagePublic WorksUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentContributory NegligenceReimbursementLegislative Intent
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Binyan Shel Chessed, Inc. v. Goldberger Insurance Brokerage, Inc.

The plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for negligence and a declaration that Colonial Cooperative Insurance Co. must defend and indemnify them for a 1999 incident involving Abraham Katz. The dispute arose after Goldberger Insurance Brokerage, Inc., American Building Corporation's broker, issued a certificate implying Colonial liability coverage for the plaintiff, which Colonial denied, stating no such policy existed. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions by both Colonial and Goldberger, deeming them premature. On appeal, the court granted Colonial's motion, dismissing the complaint against it, but affirmed the denial of Goldberger's motion, finding further discovery necessary to address potential fraud concerns regarding the insurance certificate.

NegligenceInsurance LawSummary JudgmentCertificate of InsurancePrivity of ContractFraud ClaimAppellate ReviewInsurance Broker LiabilityAdditional InsuredIndemnification
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coachmen Industries, Inc. v. Willis of Illinois, Inc.

This case addresses breach of contract and negligence claims filed by Plaintiff Coachmen Industries, Inc., against its insurance broker, Defendant Willis of Illinois, Inc. Coachmen alleged Willis failed to properly notify an excess insurance carrier, Gulf Insurance Company, about the "Brashears lawsuit," which involved severe burns and disfigurement, and negligently oversaw the third-party claims administrator, Alternative Services Concepts, LLC (ASC). Willis sought summary judgment, denying contractual obligations for claims handling and disputing negligence. The Court granted partial summary judgment to Willis regarding the notification of a specific policy endorsement and common law negligence. However, it denied summary judgment on breach of contract claims concerning claims handling and TPA oversight, and on voluntary undertaking negligence, due to unresolved questions of material fact.

Insurance brokerProfessional negligenceBreach of contractSummary judgmentClaims administrationThird-party administratorInsurance policyNotification dutyExcess insuranceTexas contract law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Siragusa v. State

The court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of claims made under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The appellate court agreed with the trial court's finding that the accident resulted from the claimant's negligence in driving off the shoulder, rather than any negligence on the part of the State. It was noted that claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) are subject to the defense of comparative negligence. Furthermore, Labor Law § 240 (1) was deemed inapplicable as the incident did not involve risks associated with falling from an elevated work site or being struck by falling objects, clarifying that a highway's contour does not constitute an elevated work platform.

NegligenceComparative NegligenceLabor Law 200Labor Law 240Labor Law 241Elevated Work SiteHighway AccidentWorker SafetyAffirmationAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1994

Kuznetz v. County of Nassau

The plaintiff, an adjunct professor at Nassau Community College, suffered a fractured ankle after tripping on a staircase at the college. After receiving workers' compensation benefits, she filed a negligence action against the College, the Board of Trustees, and the County of Nassau, alleging negligent maintenance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 as they were joint employers. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to establish that the County, the College, and the Board of Trustees were indeed the plaintiff's joint employers, thus barring the negligence action. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been granted, dismissing the complaint against all parties.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawJoint EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNassau Community CollegeCounty of NassauEducation LawTrip and Fall
References
4
Case No. 14-20-00354-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2021

Lucina Patricia Trujillo, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Nathaniel Andrew Boado, And Ivan Ricardo Trujillo, Individually v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.

Appellants Lucina Patricia Trujillo and Ivan Ricardo Trujillo sued Werner Enterprises, Inc. following a fatal vehicle accident, alleging vicarious liability as a carrier or negligent hiring as a broker. The trial court granted summary judgment for Werner, concluding it acted as a broker and the claims were preempted by federal law. On appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Werner's role, citing contradictory evidence from the 'Transportation Agreement' labeling Werner as 'Carrier' and a bill of lading, versus a 'Broker-Carrier Agreement' and deposition testimony identifying Werner as a 'Broker.' The court did not reach the federal preemption issue due to its reversal on Werner's status.

Motor Carrier LiabilityBrokerageSummary Judgment ReversalFatal Vehicle AccidentVicarious LiabilityFederal Transportation LawContractual InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsFact DisputeRemand
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 4,793 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