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

Adams v. Chicago Insurance

Eric R. Adams, an attorney, sued Chicago Insurance Company for breach of its professional liability insurance policy, seeking a declaration that Chicago had a duty to defend and indemnify him in an underlying professional malpractice lawsuit brought by Patricia E. Novak. Chicago disclaimed coverage, asserting Adams failed to provide timely notice of the potential malpractice claim as required by the policy's terms. The court initially found that Adams, despite his claims of a good faith belief in non-liability, unreasonably delayed notifying Chicago of the potential claim. However, the court ultimately concluded that Chicago was equitably estopped from denying coverage due to its own unreasonable eight-month delay in formally disclaiming coverage after receiving initial notice from Adams and for engaging in conduct that gave the appearance of defending Adams. Consequently, the court denied Chicago's motion for summary judgment and granted Adams' motion, compelling Chicago to defend and indemnify Adams in the malpractice action.

Professional LiabilityInsurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLegal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelTimeliness of NoticeDisclaimer of CoverageFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. ADJ7022627
Regular
Feb 08, 2013

WARRICK HOLDMAN vs. CHICAGO BEARS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Warrick Holdman, a former Chicago Bears player, and his insurer, Travelers Insurance, regarding a cumulative industrial injury claim. A prior decision awarded 89% permanent disability and specific treatment limitations. The defendants petitioned for reconsideration after the judge retired. Crucially, a compromise and release agreement has since been filed. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decisions, and returned the case for a new judge to review the proposed settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAmended Findings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryCumulative InjuryProfessional AthletePermanent DisabilityLife Pension
References
1
Case No. ADJ7560127
Regular
May 20, 2013

MICHAEL RICHARDSON vs. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., CHICAGO BEARS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, OAKLAND RAIDERS, FREMONT INDEMNITY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ's determination of the date of injury as February 2, 1989, was not supported by substantial evidence. Medical evidence and applicant's own statements suggest a cumulative trauma injury sustained from January 1, 1989, through December 31, 1989, with the San Francisco 49ers, not solely attributable to the Chicago Bears on February 2, 1989. The Board also directed the WCJ to address the outstanding child support lien in the new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardProfessional Football PlayerIndustrial InjuryThoracic SpineLumbar SpineRight ShoulderLeft KneeHeadachesDate of InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chicago Insurance v. Borsody

This case addresses a professional liability insurance dispute between Chicago Insurance Company (CIC) and its insured, attorney Robert P. Borsody. Borsody sought defense and indemnification from CIC for an underlying action and a cross-claim, asserting that the claims stemmed from his legal practice. CIC moved for summary judgment, contending that a fraud exclusion in the policy and Borsody's late notification of the cross-claim precluded coverage. The court determined that the allegations against Borsody in the underlying action primarily involved knowing misconduct and fraud, falling under the policy's exclusion. Furthermore, Borsody's 40-day delay in informing CIC of the cross-claim violated the policy's immediate notice requirement. Consequently, the court granted CIC's motion for summary judgment, denying coverage to Borsody and entitling CIC to recover defense costs.

Professional liability insuranceInsurance coverage disputeFraud exclusionDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyLate notice of claimLawyer malpracticeSummary judgmentNew Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention ActFifth Amendment privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trump v. Chicago Tribune Co.

Donald Trump, a New York real estate developer, filed a libel action against the Chicago Tribune Company and its architecture critic, Paul Gapp, concerning an article published in August 1984. Trump alleged that Gapp's criticism of his proposed 150-story skyscraper, describing it as an "atrocious, ugly monstrosity" and "one of the silliest things anyone could inflict on New York," damaged his reputation. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing First Amendment protection for expressions of opinion. District Judge Edward Weinfeld reviewed the article and concluded that Gapp's statements were expressions of subjective aesthetic opinion, not verifiable facts, and thus protected by the First Amendment. The court emphasized that such judgments are not subject to factual proof and, consequently, dismissed the complaint.

LibelFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOpinion vs. FactArchitecture CriticismReal Estate DevelopmentDefamationMedia LawDismissalNew York Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2002

Wilson v. Chicago Bridge & Iron

A former construction worker, the claimant, filed for workers' compensation benefits in January 2001, alleging asbestosis from his employment with Chicago Bridge & Iron. National Union Fire Insurance Company was identified as the carrier. After medical evidence supported the occupational disease claim, and despite the carrier failing to obtain an independent medical examination, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing improper notice to their third-party administrator, Crawford & Company. The court rejected this contention, affirming the Board's decision, citing the carrier's direct involvement and representation by counsel throughout the proceedings.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationshipIndependent Medical ExaminationDue ProcessThird-Party AdministratorCarrier LiabilityEmployer AppealBoard Affirmance
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fitzgerald v. Alleghany Corp.

Plaintiff Robert Fitzgerald sued his employer, Chicago Title Insurance Co., alleging disability discrimination under New York law after he was discharged. Fitzgerald claimed his termination, occurring during a company consolidation and layoffs, was due to the employer learning he was seeing a psychiatrist for depression. Chicago Title moved for summary judgment, arguing the alleged disability was not protected and Fitzgerald failed to present evidence of discriminatory animus. The court reviewed Fitzgerald's performance and the communication of his psychiatric care to company personnel, finding no direct link to the termination decision-makers. The court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, concluding that Fitzgerald failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding discriminatory motivation under either pretext or mixed-motive analysis.

Disability DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentNew York Human Rights LawPretext DiscriminationMixed Motive AnalysisMental ImpairmentDepressionEmployer LiabilityEmployment Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Smith

The case involves a dispute between Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company and its related fiduciaries, and Melvin Smith and his union affiliates, regarding Smith's pension eligibility after his termination. Smith applied for a pension in 1990, which the Company denied. His union filed a grievance, leading to arbitration where an arbitrator found Smith eligible for deferred pension benefits. The Company then sued to vacate the arbitration award and determine the pension amount under ERISA, while the defendants sought to confirm the award. The court confirmed the arbitration award, finding Smith's pension right arbitrable and vested under the expired collective bargaining agreement and pension plan. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Company's ERISA claim, ruling that the fiduciaries lacked standing to bring such an action.

Pension BenefitsArbitration AwardLabor DisputeERISA StandingCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Pension Plan TerminationPost-Expiration ArbitrabilityStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDisability Pension
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Schatz Fed. Bearings Co., Inc.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) sought to withdraw from the Creditors’ Committee in the bankruptcy estate of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., Inc. The Creditors’ Committee opposed the withdrawal, aiming to preserve its appeal of an earlier ruling that deemed the UAW eligible to serve. The court granted the UAW's application to withdraw, citing that a creditor's willingness to serve is a key factor in committee composition and that compelling service is not justified when the creditor no longer has an interest in the case, especially since the debtor's business has ceased and its assets were liquidated. The court also noted the UAW's pension rights were guaranteed by ERISA and it had negotiated a new contract with the asset buyer, making its position on the committee academic.

BankruptcyCreditors' CommitteeUnion RepresentationMotion to WithdrawMootness DoctrineERISADebtor LiquidationJudicial DiscretionAdequate RepresentationVoluntary Service
References
2
Case No. 99 Civ. 0793(RCC)
Regular Panel Decision

Fezzani v. BEAR, STEARNS & COMPANY INC.

This Opinion & Order addresses motions to dismiss in a complex securities fraud case stemming from a "boiler room" scheme by A.R. Baron & Co., which defrauded customers of millions. Plaintiffs, former Baron customers, sought recovery from multiple entities and individuals, including Bear Stearns, other broker-dealers, financiers, and the Apollo Defendants, alleging federal securities fraud, RICO violations, and various New York common law claims like fraud, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. The court, presided over by District Judge Paul A. Crotty, granted motions to dismiss against most defendants, citing failures to meet heightened pleading standards under Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA, and lack of duty to disclose for clearing brokers. However, the court denied dismissal for market manipulation, civil conspiracy to defraud, and aiding and abetting fraud claims against the Apollo Defendants, specifically for plaintiff James Bailey, allowing those specific claims to proceed.

Securities FraudMarket ManipulationRICO ViolationsCommon Law FraudCivil ConspiracyAiding and Abetting FraudBroker-Dealer MisconductBoiler Room SchemePleading StandardsStatute of Limitations
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 173 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