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

Pepco Construction of New York, Inc. v. CNA Insurance

This case concerns an action for declaratory judgment initiated by Pepco Construction of New York, Inc. against CNA Insurance Company. Pepco sought a declaration that CNA was obligated to defend and indemnify it in an underlying personal injury action, arguing that a subcontract with Savmor Mechanical, insured by CNA, incorporated a provision from the prime contract requiring additional insured coverage. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to Pepco. However, the appellate court modified this decision, ruling that the subcontract's language regarding the incorporation of the insurance procurement provision was ambiguous. This ambiguity creates a question of fact that precludes summary judgment, necessitating a trial to determine if Pepco qualified as an additional insured under CNA's policies. Consequently, Pepco's cross-motion for summary judgment on CNA's obligation to defend and indemnify was denied.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredSubcontract AgreementContractual AmbiguitySummary JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyConstruction LawAppellate ReviewDeclaratory Judgment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Puricelli v. CNA Insurance

Plaintiffs Diane Puricelli and Charles Hughes jointly sued their former employer, CNA, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Human Rights Law, alongside intentional infliction of emotional distress. CNA sought to sever the plaintiffs' claims or hold separate trials, arguing they were misjoined and lacked common transactional origins or questions of law/fact. The court, applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a) and 42(b), determined that the claims were sufficiently related due to a common pattern of alleged age discrimination following CNA's takeover of Continental Insurance Company. Despite individual factual differences, the court found both a 'same transaction or occurrence' and 'common question of law or fact.' Consequently, the defendant's motion to sever the claims or conduct separate trials was denied, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed jointly.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSeverance of ClaimsJoinder of PartiesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 20(a)Rule 42(b)Human Rights LawEmotional DistressEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pronti v. CNA Financial Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas J. Pronti sued CNA Financial Corporation and CNA Retirement Plan (collectively, "Defendants") alleging misrepresentations regarding his pension benefits. Pronti claimed his benefits were wrongfully calculated because his prior service with Continental Insurance Company was not credited under the CNA Plan, despite alleged representations to the contrary. Pronti brought claims for benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and estoppel. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding it duplicated the claim for benefits under ERISA, and the breach of contract claim, finding it preempted by ERISA. However, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim, concluding that Pronti had sufficiently alleged a promise, reliance, injury, injustice, and "extraordinary circumstances" under ERISA's federal common law.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelMotion to DismissPreemptionEmployee BenefitsRetirement PlanBenefit Accrual
References
29
Case No. ADJ2588415
Regular
Jun 04, 2012

Hilda Marron vs. Celstron International, Continental Casualty Company, c/o CNA ClaimPlus

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by CNA Claims Plus/American Casualty Company concerning a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. CNA was ordered to reimburse the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) $203,208.35 for payments made. CNA argued CIGA failed to prove the necessity and reasonableness of these payments, but the WCAB denied reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding CNA had ample opportunity to rebut CIGA's evidence at trial and failed to do so.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCELESTRON INTERNATIONALCONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANYCNA CLAIMPLUSCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAREIMBURSEMENTMEDICAL REPORTSBILLSEOR
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. CNA Insurance

In January 1996, the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while working and received workers’ compensation benefits from CNA Insurance Companies. She later settled a third-party negligence action for $32,500 without obtaining the required consent from CNA. The petitioner sought judicial approval, nunc pro tunc, for this settlement. The Supreme Court initially granted approval, but the appellate court reversed and remitted due to insufficient documentation. Following the submission of additional evidence, the Supreme Court again granted approval, prompting the current appeal. The appellate court reviewed the relevant factors, noting evidence suggesting difficulty in proving serious injury and that respondent CNA suffered no prejudice from the delay. Despite the normal three-month limit for such applications, the Supreme Court's exercise of broad discretion in approving the settlement was not deemed an abuse. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentThird-Party SettlementJudicial ApprovalNunc Pro TuncConsent RequirementDiscretionary AuthorityAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Continental Casualty Co.

Peterson sued Continental Casualty Company (CNA) seeking short- and long-term disability benefits under ERISA. CNA denied the claims, arguing Peterson was not disabled from a modified, sedentary desk job CBS assigned him after his injury. Peterson cross-moved for summary judgment and sought to add CBS as a defendant for failing to provide plan documents. The court denied both summary judgment motions, finding CNA's interpretation of Peterson's 'regular occupation' as the temporary desk job to be arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded both disability claims to the Claim Administrator to re-evaluate based on Peterson's actual regular occupation prior to his injury, noting that an 'accommodation' job is not the 'regular occupation'. Peterson's request to amend the complaint to add CBS was also denied due to lack of demonstrated prejudice and insufficient grounds for ERISA sanctions.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewClaim Administrator DiscretionRegular Occupation DefinitionTotal Disability DefinitionCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSpinal Cord Compression
References
17
Case No. ADJ2502324 (POM 0281213) ADJ964225 (RIV 0026851)
Regular
Jun 19, 2009

Howard Gold vs. DENNY'S INC.; CIGA, BY ITS SERVICING AGENCY, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, FOR HIH INSURANCE COMPANY, IN LIQUIDATION, CNA Insurance

This case concerns applicant Howard Gold's cumulative trauma injury claim for back and spine issues, spanning September 2, 2000 to October 18, 2000. Defendant CNA Insurance sought reconsideration, arguing the claim was time-barred because applicant had knowledge of his disability and its industrial causation by October 2000. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied CNA's petition, adopting the judge's report that found the claim not barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, the Board affirmed a modification assigning CIGA responsibility for future medical treatment related to a prior 1997 injury, pending further development of the record on other insurance availability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCNA InsuranceDenny's Inc.CIGAHIH Insuranceliquidationcumulative traumastatute of limitationsindustrial injuryback and spine
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stottlar v. Ginsburg Development Corp.

An employee of W.C. Shopovick & Co., Inc., a carpentry subcontractor for Ginsburg Development Corp. (GDC), was injured. The employee sued GDC, who then impleaded Shopovick for indemnification. Shopovick had both Workers' Compensation (State Insurance Fund) and Comprehensive General Liability (CNA Insurance Company) policies. Shopovick initiated a fourth-party action to determine which insurer was responsible. The Supreme Court initially ruled that State Insurance Fund was solely liable. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, citing General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, which allows for contractual indemnification for negligence of parties other than the promisee. The court concluded that both State Insurance Fund and CNA Insurance Company are obligated as co-insurers for Shopovick's liability.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationContractual IndemnityWorkers' Compensation PolicyGeneral Liability PolicyCo-insurersSubcontractorGeneral ContractorNegligenceThird-Party Claims
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2000

Stiffen v. CNA Insurance

Petitioner Robert W. Stiffen, injured in the course of his employment, received workers' compensation benefits from CNA Insurance Companies. He settled a third-party action against Charles Newman for $25,000 without the carrier's prior consent. Although benefits were initially reinstated, the carrier later refused retroactive consent to the settlement. Petitioners subsequently sought nunc pro tunc approval for the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), which the Supreme Court granted. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding the settlement reasonable, the delay in seeking approval not attributable to petitioners' fault, and no prejudice caused to the carrier by the delay.

Nunc pro tuncPersonal injury settlementWorkers' Compensation LawThird-party actionCarrier consentJudicial approvalPrejudiceReasonableness of settlementDelay in applicationWaiver of consent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Farrell v. CNA Insurance

The claimant, an adjuster for CNA Insurance Company, sustained a back injury while inspecting a fire-damaged property, falling from a makeshift ladder. The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied the claim, accepting an independent adjuster's opinion that the accident could not have occurred as described. This court reversed the Board's decision, finding the independent adjuster's conclusions to be based on speculation and insufficient to overcome the presumption that an unwitnessed accident within the course of employment is work-related. The court also deemed certain evidence from the adjuster inadmissible for lacking foundation. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this court's decision.

Worker's InjuryAdjusterRoof FallUnwitnessed AccidentPresumption of EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceSpeculationAdmissibility of EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 170 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