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

Logan Bus Co. v. Discover Property & Casualty Insurance

The plaintiff, Logan Bus Company, Inc., initiated a declaratory judgment action against Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Company to establish Discover's obligation to defend and indemnify Logan in an underlying lawsuit. The underlying action involved a sexual assault perpetrated by a student on another student on a bus owned by Logan, allegedly due to inadequate supervision. Logan appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Queens County: one denying its motion for summary judgment for coverage and another granting Discover's motion to declare no obligation and dismiss the complaint. The appellate court affirmed both lower court orders, concluding that the "abuse or molestation" endorsement in Logan's insurance policy with Discover explicitly limited coverage to acts committed by "employees" or "volunteer workers." Since the alleged incident was perpetrated by a student, Logan failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to coverage, leading to the affirmation of Discover's non-obligation to defend or indemnify.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance Policy InterpretationCoverage DisputeAbuse or Molestation EndorsementDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAutomobile InsuranceStudent Assault
References
11
Case No. ADJ10447649
Regular
Jan 16, 2018

ALI KENDRICK vs. HOLOGIC, INC.; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA AND ITS PROPERTY CASUALTY AFFILIATES AND SUBSIDIARIES

The defendant, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, sought reconsideration of an award based on stipulated facts. They argued that a mutual mistake occurred regarding the date of injury, leading to an overpayment of permanent disability benefits. The Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration, finding the petition should be treated as a petition to set aside the award at the trial level. The WCJ will now conduct proceedings to determine if good cause exists to rescind or amend the award due to a mutual mistake of fact.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalStipulations with Request for AwardMutual Mistake of FactIndustrial InjuryBilateral ElbowsBilateral WristsPermanent DisabilityIndemnity
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atlantic Casualty Insurance v. Value Waterproofing, Inc.

Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Value Waterproofing, Inc. in an underlying breach of contract and negligence lawsuit. Value counterclaimed, requesting a declaration that Atlantic Casualty was required to defend and indemnify. The court granted Atlantic Casualty's request, finding that Value failed to provide timely notice of the claim, thereby prejudicing Atlantic Casualty's investigation capabilities. Additionally, the court ruled that Value's work on a commercial property was not covered by its residential-only roofing insurance policy, further justifying the denial of coverage.

Insurance disputeBreach of contractNegligenceDeclaratory judgmentTimely noticeCoverage exclusionCommercial General LiabilityResidential roofingPolicy interpretationPrejudice
References
46
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00599 [224 AD3d 428]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2024

Matter of New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

This case involves two appeals by New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. against Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Company. New Millennium sought to vacate master arbitration awards that denied its claims for no-fault benefits for medical services. The Supreme Court denied these applications. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions, stating that an arbitrator's award will not be set aside unless it is irrational. The court also addressed the argument regarding a 20% wage offset in no-fault benefits, finding it unavailing under Insurance Law § 5102 (b). Ultimately, New Millennium was not entitled to attorneys' fees as it was not the prevailing party.

No-fault benefitsarbitration awardvacaturinsurance lawwage offsetappellate reviewmedical servicesno-fault policy exhaustionattorneys' feesCPLR Article 75
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Astra Media Group, LLC v. Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC

Plaintiff Astra Media Group, LLC sued defendants Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC and the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) alleging federal and state antitrust violations, discrimination, and tortious interference. Astra claimed Clear Channel conspired with the TLC to ban its four-sided taxi rooftop advertising, engaged in predatory pricing, filed baseless lawsuits, and destroyed property. The court granted Clear Channel's motion to dismiss the antitrust and tortious interference claims, citing lack of plausible allegations and immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The TLC's motion for summary judgment on the discrimination claim was also granted due to Astra's failure to provide specific supporting facts. The court consequently dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

Antitrust LawSherman ActDonnelly ActTortious InterferencePredatory PricingNoerr-Pennington DoctrineEqual Protection ClauseMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentTaxi Advertising Regulation
References
55
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. ADJ8002816, ADJ8316468
Regular
Oct 05, 2016

LORENZO TOSCANO CORONA vs. KOOSHAREM, doing business as SELECT STAFFING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION (CIGA), ULLICO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, RSI HOME PRODUCTS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over workers' compensation coverage where applicant Lorenzo Toscano Corona was injured, allegedly while employed through a staff leasing arrangement between Koosharem (Select Staffing) and RSI Home Products. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address arguments by ACE American Insurance Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company that their policies excluded coverage for the applicant. The Board rescinded the prior decision due to the arbitrator's failure to adequately document the proceedings and admitted exhibits as required by law. The matter is returned to the arbitrator to create a proper record and evaluate whether ACE and Travelers' policies contained valid exclusions for the applicant's injuries, considering relevant insurance code provisions and endorsements.

Staff leasingGeneral employerSpecial employerJoint and several liabilityOther insuranceInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)Hold harmless clauseWCAB Rule 10566Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp.Labor Code section 3602(d)
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05756 [164 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2018

James v. Crystal Springs Water

The plaintiff, Robert James, an employee of Manpower Group US, Inc., was injured while working at Crystal Springs Water premises and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. James then initiated a personal injury action against Crystal Springs Water. Crystal Springs moved for summary judgment, asserting it was James's special employer under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29, which would legally bar a negligence suit. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted this motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that Crystal Springs had established a prima facie case of special employment based on James's receipt of workers' compensation and Crystal Springs' control over his work details. The plaintiff's contradictory affidavit was deemed insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury LitigationAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityGeneral EmployerControl TestConflicting TestimonyNew York Labor Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ10015666, ADJ12280547
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

YGNACIO PONCE vs. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, EARTHBOUND FARMS

Applicant Ygnacio Ponce sought reconsideration of Findings and Orders issued on July 19, 2021, which found that he did not sustain injury to several body parts and was not entitled to additional QME panels for internal medicine and psychology. Ponce specifically contended the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) erred in denying a QME to determine if he sustained a psyche injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the F&O, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support causation for the alleged psyche injury and that the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking a QME panel within the mandated discovery period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrdersMaterial HandlerRight Shoulder InjuryPermanent StationaryNew and Further DisabilityQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Petition to ReopenPsyche Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NWL Holdings, Inc. v. Discover Property & Casualty Insurance

Plaintiff NWL Holdings, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment against Discover Property Casualty Insurance Company, asserting that the insurer had a duty to defend NWL in a state court action where a former employee, Nawaz Malik, alleged sexual assault and related claims. NWL also requested reimbursement for defense costs and attorneys' fees incurred. The court analyzed the insurance policy's "occurrence" definition and the "Expected or Intended Injury" exclusion, alongside New York law on an insurer's duty to defend. The court found that even though the initial Malik complaint did not explicitly state negligent supervision, the alleged facts were sufficient to imply such a claim. Furthermore, the court determined that Discover had actual knowledge of facts establishing a reasonable possibility of coverage based on a subsequent, similar lawsuit by Malik that did include negligent supervision claims. Consequently, the court granted NWL Holdings, Inc.'s motion for a declaratory judgment, confirming Discover's duty to defend, and also granted the motion for attorneys' fees, referring the quantification to a Magistrate Judge.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendNegligent SupervisionSexual HarassmentVicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentNew York LawFederal CourtCommercial General LiabilityAttorneys' Fees
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 2,674 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