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. 2017 NY Slip Op 07574
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2017

Reaves v. Lakota Construction Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Duane Reaves commenced an action to recover for personal injuries sustained when he tripped over construction materials at his workplace. Defendants 214-27 Northern Boulevard, LLC, Bergon Construction Corp., and Lakota Construction Group, Inc. moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against them. The Supreme Court denied these motions, and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. Issues of fact remained regarding whether 214-27 Northern Boulevard, LLC was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, thereby precluding a Workers' Compensation Law defense. Furthermore, factual disputes existed concerning the contributions of Lakota Construction Group, Inc. and Bergon Construction Corp. to the dangerous condition, and whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident, presenting an issue of comparative negligence.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawAlter Ego DoctrineComparative NegligencePremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionAppellate DivisionTripping Hazard
References
5
Case No. 14-18-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2019

James Construction Group, LLC, Primoris Services Corporation v. Westlake Chemical Corporation

James Construction Group, LLC and Primoris Services Corporation appealed a judgment concerning contract claims with Westlake Chemical Corporation. Chemical had initially sued James for breach of a construction contract, citing safety violations and a failure to indemnify. The jury found James liable for breach of contract and indemnification, leading to damages and attorney's fees awarded against Primoris due to a guaranty. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's findings on James's liability and the attorney's fees against Primoris. Crucially, the court reversed the trial court's judgment awarding James damages on its counterclaim, clarifying that a contractual waiver of consequential damages serves as an affirmative defense rather than a basis for a breach-of-contract claim.

Contract LawBreach of ContractConstruction ContractIndemnificationGuaranty AgreementAttorney's FeesConsequential DamagesWaiver of DamagesConditions PrecedentSubstantial Compliance
References
136
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05955 [174 AD3d 850]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

Davies v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Gerald Davies, was injured while pushing a cart of concrete over a plywood sheet that covered a hole at a construction site. He initiated an action against the premises operator, Simon Property Group, Inc., the general contractor, E.W. Howell Co., LLC, and the sidewalk removal company, Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). E.W. Howell Co., LLC also filed a third-party action against Allstate Interior Demolition Corporation, the plaintiff's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court's initial order, which partially granted and denied various summary judgment motions, was subject to appeals and cross-appeals. The Appellate Division ultimately reversed the order in part, granting Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and denying Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion concerning Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationElevation DifferentialScaffold LawIndustrial CodeSafe Work Environment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Batts v. IBEX Construction, LLC

The plaintiff appealed from two Supreme Court orders that granted summary judgment to defendants Sutton Place Group, LLC and IBEX Construction, LLC, effectively dismissing the plaintiff's personal injury complaint. The plaintiff sustained injuries from a slip and fall on a staircase. The appellate court found that Sutton Place Group, LLC failed to establish a prima facie case that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, and thus was not protected by the Workers' Compensation Law. Additionally, IBEX Construction, LLC failed to prove it did not create a dangerous condition on the staircase or that its actions were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's fall. As a result, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment orders against both defendants, allowing the plaintiff's claims to proceed. A cross-appeal filed by IBEX Construction, LLC was dismissed due to abandonment.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary Judgment AppealWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrineContractor NegligenceHazardous ConditionProximate CauseComparative FaultAppellate Dismissal
References
23
Case No. 14-21-00322-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2023

The City of Houston v. James Construction Group, LLC

The City of Houston appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction in a contract dispute with James Construction Group, LLC (JCG) regarding airport repairs. JCG sought additional payment for work and termination costs, alleging gross mismanagement by the City. The appellate court dismissed the challenge to the summary-judgment denial for lack of jurisdiction. Regarding the plea to the jurisdiction, the court reversed and dismissed, finding that the City's governmental immunity was not waived. JCG failed to establish that the City Engineer acted with fraud, misconduct, or gross mistake in determining the claims, which was a contractual prerequisite to waiving immunity.

Contract DisputeGovernmental ImmunityBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPlea to JurisdictionAppellate JurisdictionCity EngineerConstruction LawPublic ContractsTexas Appellate Court
References
20
Case No. M2023-00028-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2024

Heritage Construction Group, LLC v. Karen Vest

Heritage Construction Group, LLC, a homebuilder, appealed a chancery court decision that denied its motion to modify or vacate an arbitration award and instead granted attorney's fees to homeowner Karen Vest. The homebuilder argued the arbitrator exceeded his powers by not awarding attorney's fees and contractual penalties. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the chancery court's judgment. It found that the arbitrator acted within his powers, plausibly concluding no single party prevailed, thus justifying the denial of attorney's fees. Furthermore, the court upheld the arbitrator's finding that the homebuilder had waived the contractual penalty for occupancy, despite the contract's written waiver clause. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the award of attorney's fees to Ms. Vest for successfully defending against Heritage's motion.

ArbitrationContract DisputeAttorney FeesWaiverPrevailing PartyHome ConstructionChancery CourtCourt of AppealsTennessee LawFederal Arbitration Act
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03146
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2017

Barrett v. Magnetic Construction Group Corp.

This case concerns an appeal and cross-appeal from an order denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification and dismissing a third-party complaint. Anthony Barrett, an employee of MJE, Inc., was allegedly injured while working on a renovation project for Magnetic Construction Group Corp., a general contractor. Magnetic, facing a personal injury suit from Barrett, initiated a third-party action against MJE for contractual indemnification. Both Magnetic and MJE sought summary judgment regarding the existence and applicability of a written indemnification contract. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that issues of fact remained as to whether a written contract containing an indemnification provision was in effect between Magnetic and MJE on the date of the accident.

Contractual indemnificationSummary judgmentThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawSubcontract agreementRetroactive contractDemolition workPersonal injuryAppellate reviewQuestion of fact
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Central New York Laborers' Health & Welfare Fund v. Fahs Construction Group, Inc.

This case involves several labor funds and unions (plaintiffs) suing Fahs Construction Group, Inc. and Richard Gangemi (defendants) under ERISA and LMRA for alleged failure to remit benefit contributions. Gangemi moved to dismiss, claiming a key collective bargaining agreement was forged. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment against Fahs Construction Group on claims related to a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) and also requested to dismiss all claims against Gangemi and non-PLA claims against Fahs. The court granted the voluntary dismissal of all claims against Gangemi with prejudice and all non-PLA claims against Fahs Construction Group. However, the cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the remaining PLA claims against Fahs Construction Group were denied due to unresolved factual disputes concerning the interpretation of the PLA's benefit payment provisions and whether Fahs properly designated 'core' employees. The court encouraged the parties to settle the remaining PLA claims.

ERISALMRAVoluntary DismissalSummary JudgmentProject Labor AgreementBenefit ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementFraud on the CourtLabor LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wensley v. Argonox Construction Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Skyway Roofing of Troy, Inc., was injured during a reroofing project when a section of gypsum roof fell and stretched his arm. He sued Argonox Construction Corporation and Galesi Group, the contractors and owners' group, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, 241 (6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied dismissal of Labor Law claims but dismissed the negligence claim. On appeal, the court affirmed the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1) to the gravity-induced fall. However, it dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim for lack of specific regulation allegations and the Labor Law § 200 claim due to the dismissed common-law negligence. The court also affirmed the denial of Argonox's premature summary judgment motion against Skyway regarding indemnification.

Workers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceIndemnificationContributionSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewConstruction Site Safety
References
10
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08399 [133 AD3d 733]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2015

Podobedov v. East Coast Construction Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Aleksey Podobedov, was injured on a construction site when struck by falling concrete while working for subcontractor IBK Enterprises, Inc. He sued the general contractor, East Coast Construction Group, Inc., and owner, Clinton West Partners, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants filed a third-party complaint against IBK for contractual indemnification. All parties moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that none of the parties had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law regarding the Labor Law claims or the issue of contractual indemnification, thus requiring a jury determination.

Construction accidentpersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)falling objectsummary judgmentcontractual indemnificationAppellate Divisionprima facietriable issue of factsubcontractor liability
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 5,606 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