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. 2023 NY Slip Op 01554 [214 AD3d 1218]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2023

Bahnuk v. Countryway Ins. Co.

Paul Bahnuk, an emergency medical technician, was injured while responding to a call and subsequently sued Pauline Williams, the property owner. Williams' insurer, Countryway Insurance Company, disclaimed coverage. Williams and Bahnuk agreed to a confession of judgment for $100,000, with Bahnuk agreeing not to execute against Williams but instead pursue Countryway under Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2). Bahnuk then commenced an action against Countryway. Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding Countryway's notice of disclaimer to Bahnuk insufficient but also a triable issue of fact regarding collusion between Bahnuk and Williams. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, agreeing that the notice was insufficient and that a factual question remained regarding collusion.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentConfession of JudgmentCollusionPersonal InjuryHomeowner's InsuranceAppellate ReviewNotice RequirementsInsurance Policy Exclusions
References
7
Case No. ADJ8067615
Regular
Apr 15, 2015

Latonia Bowman vs. SARA LEE CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an attorney's request to be relieved due to irreconcilable differences with his client. The applicant had accused the attorney of misconduct and collusion with the insurance company. Although the applicant later expressed remorse and a desire to be a better client, the Appeals Board found the attorney-client relationship had irrevocably deteriorated. Consequently, the Board granted the attorney's petition and relieved his firm as counsel for the applicant.

Petition for RemovalDismissal of AttorneyIrreconcilable DifferencesAttorney-Client PrivilegeMisconductFraudCollusionBreakdown of RelationshipWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1985

Ianielli v. North River Insurance

This case addresses the apportionment of a workers’ compensation carrier's share of litigation costs in a third-party action. The plaintiff sought to re-evaluate his settlement in light of a subsequent Court of Appeals decision (Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund) that allowed for apportionment based on the total benefit the carrier receives, including estimated future benefits. However, the plaintiff's third-party action was settled, and a general release signed, prior to this new decisional law. The court affirmed Special Term's denial of the plaintiff's application, ruling that a valid and binding stipulation of settlement terminates existing litigation and precludes reopening the claim to apply a change in decisional law, especially when no fraud, collusion, or mistake is shown. The court emphasized that the case was no longer in the normal litigating process.

Workers' CompensationLitigation CostsEquitable ApportionmentSettlement AgreementRetroactive ApplicationDecisional LawInsurance CarrierThird-Party ActionFuture BenefitsWaiver of Rights
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1999

White v. White Rose Food

This action, brought under Section 301 of the LMRA, arises from the disbursement of settlement funds after a plant closing and a labor strike involving White Rose Food and Local No. 138. Plaintiffs, former employees, contended that an 'Amendment to Settlement Agreement' which deducted employer payroll taxes from a $1,500,000 settlement fund was entered into without required union membership ratification. The court found that Local 138's leadership acted in bad faith and arbitrarily by concealing this amendment and its financial impact from members, thereby breaching its duty of fair representation. Consequently, the court held the defendant White Rose liable due to its collusion with the union leadership in this concealment. Judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for the deducted amount plus prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees were also awarded.

Duty of Fair RepresentationUnion RatificationSettlement AgreementPayroll Tax DeductionsBreach of ContractConcealmentBad Faith ConductApparent AuthorityExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAttorneys' Fees
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Musto v. Transport Workers Union of America

Plaintiffs, former Title II Utility Men for American Airlines, represented by TWU and Local 501, alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act. They claimed the unions breached their duty of fair representation by deliberately eliminating their jobs during negotiations in 2002, leading to layoffs, and by failing to pursue their grievances. Plaintiffs also asserted American improperly laid them off, breaching collective bargaining agreements and Letters of Understanding. The court denied the unions' motions to dismiss the fair representation claims, finding sufficient evidence of bad faith and discrimination. However, plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages against the unions were dismissed. American's motion to dismiss, arguing minor disputes and lack of collusion, was also denied, as the court found a valid hybrid claim for breach of the CBA inextricably linked to the union's fair representation breach.

Railway Labor ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementLayoffsSeniority RightsContract NegotiationGrievance ProcedureStatute of LimitationsPunitive DamagesHybrid Actions
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tucker v. American Building Maintenance

Pro se plaintiff Augustine Tucker brought an action against his former and current employers, American Building Maintenance Company of New York, Inc. (ABM) and Collins Building Services (CBS), to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration, conducted under a collective bargaining agreement, denied Tucker's grievance regarding a change in his work shift and loss of overtime pay. Tucker alleged the award was arbitrary, fraudulent, and a product of collusion, and that his union attorney provided negligent representation. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Tucker lacked standing, failed to state a claim, and the action was untimely. The court granted the motion, finding Tucker did not provide sufficient facts to support claims of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, nor did he meet the rigorous standards under the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate an arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissFederal Arbitration ActPro Se LitigationWorkplace DisputeOvertime PayWork Shift Change
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iroquois Beverage Corp. v. International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America

The case involves an application by Alger A. Williams, J. George E. Constantine, and other employees (referred to as intervenors) to join an existing arbitration proceeding. This arbitration is between Iroquois Beverage Corporation (the employer) and an unnamed union. The union initiated the arbitration to improve the seniority rights of 32 employees, which would negatively impact the intervenors. Both the employer and the union opposed the intervenors' application. The court examined legal precedents regarding individual employee rights in collective bargaining agreements, noting a trend towards recognizing an employee's right to independent representation, especially when the union's interests may conflict with those of certain members. The judge concluded that allowing the intervention would serve justice, particularly given the union's admitted prior collusion with the company regarding seniority in 1949. The court also dismissed the union's objection concerning the lack of a complete list of proposed intervenors as immaterial.

Employee RightsCollective BargainingArbitration InterventionSeniority RightsUnion RepresentationThird-Party BeneficiaryLabor LawJudicial Review of ArbitrationCollusionDue Process
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kozera v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Plaintiffs Ted Kozera, Richard Mekeel, and Arthur Filardi brought an action against IBEW, Local 501, Chapter, and Dynatram, alleging improper imposition and maintenance of a trusteeship, restriction of rights, and breach of the duty of fair representation. The plaintiffs claimed the trusteeship was used to suppress an uncooperative faction within Local 501 and that collective bargaining agreements were improperly negotiated and implemented. Additionally, plaintiff Richard Mekeel alleged wrongful termination by Dynatram due to his dissident activities. The court denied summary judgment motions by IBEW, Local 501, and Dynatram on all claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the trusteeship's purpose, potential collusion, and Mekeel's termination. The motion for summary judgment by Chapter was granted in part regarding participation in the breach of the duty of fair representation, but denied in part concerning Chapter's alleged breach of the 1989-92 CBA.

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLMRDA Title IIILMRDA Title ILabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActUnion TrusteeshipCollective BargainingDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentWrongful Termination
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 1957

General Iron Corp. v. Livingston

Plaintiff, a wrought iron furniture manufacturer, secured a three-year collective bargaining agreement with Allied Trades Local 18 in May 1957. In August 1957, District 65, Eetail, Wholesale and Department Store Workers Union, AFL-CIO, demanded the plaintiff void this contract and sign with them, which the plaintiff refused. Subsequently, District 65 allegedly incited about 17 employees to strike and picket since September 4, 1957, leading to blocked premises, intimidation, and delivery disruptions. Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction, arguing a misleading rival union dispute causing irreparable harm. Defendants asserted Local 18's contract was collusive. Citing Metzger Co. v. Fay, the court found insufficient evidence to refute the existing contract's validity, thus granting the temporary injunction to preserve the status quo. The case was then scheduled for trial before a Special Referee on September 30, 1957.

Temporary InjunctionLabor DisputeRival UnionPicketingCollective Bargaining AgreementSweetheart Contract AllegationPresumption of Contract ValidityIrreparable HarmStatus QuoJudicial Discretion
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 14 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