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
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
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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Electric Capital Auto Financial Leasing Services, Inc. v. Stanfield

General Electric Capital Auto Financial Leasing Services, Inc. (G.E. Capital) appealed a post-answer default judgment awarded to the Stanfields and Wallaces. The central issue was whether a letter from the trial judge constituted a final judgment. The appellate court found the letter was not intended as a final judgment, thus rendering G.E. Capital's subsequent motion for a new trial timely. Applying the Craddock standard, the court determined that G.E. Capital's failure to appear was a mistake, it presented a meritorious defense, and granting a new trial would not prejudice the appellees. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

AppealDefault JudgmentNew TrialFinal JudgmentJudicial IntentTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate ProcedureMistakeMeritorious DefenseCraddock Standard
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 1997

Fernicola v. Benenson Capital Co.

Joseph Fernicola, a worker, sustained injuries after slipping on grease on a scaffold rung while descending it. He and his wife subsequently filed a lawsuit against Benenson Capital Company, the building owner. Benenson then initiated a third-party action against the City of New York, Department of Social Services, identifying them as the injured plaintiff's employer and the building's lessee. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court denied their motion, finding that the scaffold itself was not defective, and the accident was caused by a foreign substance, not a failure to provide proper protection under the Labor Law. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

personal injuriesscaffold accidentgreasesummary judgmentlabor law violationbuilding owner liabilitythird-party actionemployer liabilitylessee liabilityforeign substance
References
2
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. 04-23-00824-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2025

Victory Capital Management, Inc. v. Julianne Bass

Bass sued Victory Capital for age and sex/gender discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code. Initially, the trial court compelled arbitration based on an agreement. Bass then sought to lift the stay, arguing the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) exempted her sexual harassment claims from arbitration. The trial court granted Bass's motion to lift the stay, which Victory Capital appealed. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Bass's allegations did not constitute 'sexual harassment' as defined by the EFAA and Texas Labor Code, lacking any conduct of a sexual nature. The case was remanded for the trial court to reinstate the stay and compel arbitration.

ArbitrationSexual HarassmentAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRetaliationTexas Labor CodeEFAAHostile Work EnvironmentStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
41
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. 08-18-00175-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2023

TVO Cobblestone, LLC, Windy Cities Cobblestone, LLC, KLV Trust and Wayne Vandenburg v. ASI Capital, LLC

Appellants (TVO Cobblestone, LLC; Windy Cities Cobblestone, LLC; KLV Trust; and Wayne Vandenburg) appealed the trial court’s entry of default judgment against Windy Cities, KLV, and Wayne Vandenburg, as well as its order granting Appellee ASI Capital, LLC’s summary judgment against TVO. The original lawsuit by ASI Capital, LLC involved claims related to a $375,000 promissory note, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy against various entities and individuals. Appellants contended that the default judgment was granted without proper notice and that the denial of their motion for a new trial was an abuse of discretion, satisfying the Craddock test elements. The appellate court found that Appellants’ failure to answer was not intentional or consciously indifferent and that they presented meritorious defenses. Additionally, the court determined that TVO raised a fact issue regarding the authority of Russell Vandenburg to bind TVO to the promissory note and whether TVO received the loaned funds. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed both the default judgment and the summary judgment orders, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Default JudgmentSummary JudgmentCraddock TestMeritorious DefenseAgency LawApparent AuthorityBreach of ContractFraudConspiracyFraudulent Transfer
References
32
Case No. 04-16-00424-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2016

in Re RPH Capital Partners, LP

RPH Capital Partners, LP (RPH) initiated a mandamus proceeding after a trial court granted a bill of review to Peridot Joint Venture, Millennium Exploration Company, LLC, and Richard Monroy (Peridot). RPH had previously secured a default judgment against Peridot in a dispute over an oil and gas participation agreement when Peridot failed to appear for trial. Peridot challenged the default judgment claiming insufficient notice of the trial date, which the trial court accepted. However, the appellate court determined that Peridot waived its objection to insufficient notice by not acting after receiving the trial setting. The court concluded that Peridot failed to provide evidence negating intentional non-appearance or conscious indifference, a requirement for granting a bill of review, thus finding the trial court abused its discretion. The mandamus petition was conditionally granted, ordering the trial court to reinstate the default judgment.

MandamusDefault JudgmentBill of ReviewDue ProcessNotice of TrialWaiverAbuse of DiscretionOil and GasParticipation AgreementContract Dispute
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 417 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