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

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. CA 12-00454
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2012

DONALD BRAASCH CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. STATE INSURANCE FUND

Plaintiffs Donald Braasch Construction, Inc. (DBC) and CNA Insurance Company sought a declaration that defendant State Insurance Fund was conditionally obligated to indemnify them in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. The lawsuit stemmed from an accident in March 1994, and the personal injury plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit in April 1995. DBC failed to notify the defendant insurer until May 1997, prompting the defendant to disclaim coverage due to untimely notice. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, seeking reimbursement for half of the settlement amount and defense costs in the underlying lawsuit. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding existing questions of fact regarding the reasonableness of the delay. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that there remained triable issues of fact concerning whether DBC's belief in noncoverage for the accident and resultant litigation was reasonable.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentReasonable excuseNoncoverageAppellate DivisionPersonal injuryIndemnificationDefense costs
References
11
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

Nationwide Insurance v. Empire Insurance Group

This case concerns a dispute over insurance coverage. Marcos Ramirez was injured while working for Fortuna Construction, Inc. at premises owned by 11194 Owners Corp. Fortuna had subcontracted work from Total Structural Concepts, Inc. and agreed to add Total Structural as an additional insured on its general liability policy with Empire Insurance Group and Allcity Insurance Company. Ramirez sued 11194 Owners Corp. and Total Structural. Total Structural then commenced a third-party action against Fortuna. Nationwide Insurance Company, as Total Structural's insurer and subrogee, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Empire and Allcity after discovering Total Structural was an additional insured on their policy, demanding coverage for the Ramirez action. The Supreme Court granted Nationwide's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding that Total Structural failed to provide timely notice of the Ramirez action to Empire and Allcity as required by the policy. The court emphasized that timely notice is a condition precedent to recovery and that lack of diligent effort to ascertain coverage vitiates the policy. Consequently, the appellate court granted Empire and Allcity's cross-motion, declaring they are not obligated to defend or indemnify Nationwide/Total Structural.

Insurance CoverageTimely NoticeCondition PrecedentDeclaratory JudgmentAdditional InsuredSubrogationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal InjuryGeneral Liability Policy
References
8
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

Transcontinental Insurance v. State Insurance Fund

This case involves a dispute between two insurers, Transcontinental Insurance Company (plaintiff) and State Insurance Fund (defendant), regarding their contribution to the defense and settlement of an underlying personal injury action. Transcontinental, which insured the contractor Master, sought a declaration that State Insurance Fund, Master's workers' compensation insurer, should contribute as a co-insurer for expenses incurred defending and settling the action on behalf of NYPA. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, applying the antisubrogation rule. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, vacating the dismissal but affirming the application of the antisubrogation rule, declaring that State Insurance Fund is not obligated to reimburse Transcontinental for the expenses.

Insurance DisputeAntisubrogation RuleDeclaratory JudgmentCommercial General Liability PolicyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceIndemnificationCo-insurancePersonal Injury ActionAppellate ReviewContractual Obligation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S.A.F. La Sala Corp. v. CNA Insurance Companies

Plaintiffs S.A.F. La Sala Corp. and La Sala Mason Corp. (collectively La Sala) obtained a comprehensive general liability policy from defendant Transcontinental Insurance Co., an affiliate of CNA Insurance Companies. The policy included a composite rate change endorsement establishing a minimum premium of $165,827. Following an audit, the earned premium was determined to be $107,336. Transcontinental refunded La Sala the difference between the estimated and minimum premiums, which was $55,275. La Sala initiated legal action, contending they were owed an additional $58,491, representing the difference between the estimated and earned premiums, and the motion court initially granted summary judgment in their favor. This appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denying La Sala's motion for summary judgment and granting Transcontinental's cross-motion, ruling that the endorsement clearly mandated the retention of the minimum premium and did not violate New York Insurance Law.

Insurance LawContract InterpretationMinimum Premium ClauseSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentAppellate ReviewPolicy EndorsementEarned PremiumEstimated Premium
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1991

North River Insurance v. United National Insurance

This appellate decision addresses the apportionment of liability between North River Insurance Co. and United National Insurance Company arising from a settlement for an injured employee. The court clarified that North River, as the workers' compensation carrier, is solely responsible for its waived lien, reversing a lower court's finding. It further determined that both insurers' "other insurance" clauses called for pro rata contribution, not equal shares, for the $588,245 settlement payment and defense costs. The court calculated specific shares for each insurer and ruled that North River is entitled to interest from the original payment date in 1982. The Supreme Court's order was thus modified to reflect these findings.

Insurance disputePro rata contributionEquitable apportionmentWorkers' compensation lienDefense costsOther insurance clausesSettlement apportionmentInterest calculationAppellate decisionInsurer liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GuideOne Specialty Insurance v. Admiral Insurance

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute where Weingarten Custom Homes (WCH) contracted with Torah Academy for construction, designating Torah Academy as an additional insured under WCH's liability policy with Admiral Insurance Company. The Admiral policy had lower coverage limits ($1,000,000) than required by the contract ($2,000,000/$5,000,000), with GuideOne Specialty Insurance Company providing secondary and excess coverage to Torah Academy. After a construction worker's injury led to a $1,225,000 settlement, Admiral paid $1,000,000, and GuideOne paid $225,000. GuideOne then sued Admiral to recover its payment, arguing that a letter signed by Admiral's claims superintendent effectively modified Admiral's policy to higher limits. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the letter did not constitute a valid policy endorsement and that the policy's unambiguous terms could not be altered by extrinsic evidence, thereby granting Admiral's motion to dismiss GuideOne's complaint.

Insurance Policy DisputeContract InterpretationLiability InsuranceAdditional InsuredPolicy LimitsMotion to DismissAppellate ReversalDocumentary EvidenceExtrinsic Evidence RulePolicy Amendment
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 12,347 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