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. E2009-01330-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2010

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Dale Penney, d/b/a DLP Construction Co.

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. sued Dale Penney, d/b/a DLP Construction Co., to recover additional workers' compensation insurance premiums. The dispute centered on whether workers utilized by Penney were employees or independent contractors for premium assessment purposes, particularly in light of I-18 "Election of Non-Coverage by Subcontractor" Forms. The trial court ruled in favor of Hartford, finding the workers to be employees and awarding $12,316 plus costs and pre-judgment interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's finding that the workers were employees, thus upholding the premium assessment, but vacated the award of pre-judgment interest and remanded that issue for further clarification from the trial court.

Insurance PremiumsEmployee ClassificationIndependent Contractor StatusI-18 FormsPremium AuditPre-judgment InterestAppellate Court DecisionWorkers' Compensation LawContractual ObligationsTennessee Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Casualty Co. v. Dyess

This case addresses the subrogation rights of a workers' compensation carrier (Employers Casualty Co.) in relation to the employer's uninsured motorist coverage provided by Northbrook Property and Casualty Co. Carl L. Dyess, Jr., an employee, received workers' compensation benefits from Employers after being struck by an uninsured driver, Felipe Mendoza, during his employment. Dyess then sought recovery under his employer's uninsured motorist policy with Northbrook. Employers intervened, asserting statutory, contractual, and equitable subrogation rights for the benefits paid. The trial court granted summary judgment against Employers, ruling its subrogation rights did not extend to uninsured motorist coverage. The appellate court reversed, holding that statutory subrogation rights are not limited to third-party tortfeasors and that policy clauses attempting to abrogate these statutory rights are invalid. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, emphasizing the carrier's right to reimbursement to prevent double recovery by the employee.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation RightsUninsured Motorist CoverageSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationContractual LiabilityEquitable SubrogationInsurance LawTexas LawThird-Party Tortfeasor
References
38
Case No. 07-05-0386-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2007

Yorkshire Insurance Co. v. Diatom Drilling Co.

Insurers (Yorkshire Insurance Co., Ltd. and Ocean Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Diatom Drilling Co. and Employer’s Contractor Services, Inc. Insurers sought declaratory relief regarding a CGL policy's exclusion of liability for injury or death to "leased-in employees/workers." The case stems from a 1992 accident where Randall Jay Seger, an employee leased by ECS to Diatom, was killed. The appellate court found that the "Excluding Leased-In Employees/Workers" condition unambiguously excludes claims against Diatom/ECS related to such workers. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Diatom and ECS and rendered summary judgment for the Insurers, declaring the exclusion valid. The award of attorney's fees to Diatom and ECS was also reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Insurance policyDeclaratory judgmentSummary judgmentCGL policyLeased employeesWorker injuryCoverage disputePolicy exclusionAttorney's feesAppellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance

Plaintiff insurance companies, Continental Insurance Co. and American Casualty Co. (CNA), initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they have no duty to indemnify Robert A. Keasbey Co. (Keasbey) for asbestos-related claims, arguing that all claims fall under exhausted products hazard/completed operations coverage. The defendant class of asbestos claimants sought coverage under a new 'operations' theory not subject to aggregate limits. The trial court ruled in favor of the claimants, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court found that equitable affirmative defenses like laches applied against the claimants, who stood in Keasbey’s shoes. It further determined that coverage is triggered by 'injury-in-fact' rather than mere exposure to asbestos, and that the aggregate limits of the primary and excess policies were exhausted, thus absolving CNA of further indemnity obligations.

AsbestosInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentProducts HazardCompleted OperationsOperations CoverageAggregate LimitsExcess InsuranceBodily InjuryInjury-in-Fact
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Gaedcke Equipment Co.

The plaintiff, Gaedcke Equipment Co., sued its insurance providers, Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York and Continental Insurance Company, after they refused to defend Gaedcke in a prior wrongful discharge lawsuit. This wrongful discharge suit was brought by a former employee who had received workers' compensation benefits. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Gaedcke, ordering the insurers to defend. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, citing Artco-Bell Corp. v. Liberty-Mutual Insurance Co. The court held that the insurance policy's coverage for workers' compensation benefits and bodily injury damages did not extend to liability arising from wrongful discharge claims under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c. Consequently, a take-nothing judgment was entered against Gaedcke Equipment Co. and in favor of the defendant insurance companies.

Insurance CoverageWrongful DischargeWorkers' CompensationDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmployer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roy Seger v. Yorkshire Insurance Co., Ltd., and Ocean Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.

The parents of a deceased derrick hand, Randy Seger, brought a wrongful death action against Diatom Drilling Co., the owner of the rig where their son died. Diatom's commercial general liability (CGL) insurers, Yorkshire Insurance Co. and Ocean Marine Insurance Co., refused to defend, citing lack of coverage. After obtaining a judgment against Diatom, Randy's parents, Roy Seger and Shirley Faye Hoskins (the Segers), filed a Stowers action against the insurers. The central issue was whether Randy was a 'leased-in worker,' which would exclude coverage under Diatom's CGL policy. A jury initially found he was not, but on appeal, this Court, after reviewing the burden of proof for coverage and policy exclusions, determined that the evidence conclusively established Randy was a 'leased-in worker' as a matter of law. Consequently, coverage was precluded, and the Stowers action failed, affirming the court of appeals' judgment that the Segers take nothing.

Insurance CoverageStowers ActionLeased-in Worker ExclusionCommercial General Liability (CGL) PolicyWrongful DeathBurden of ProofLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceObiter DictumVoidable ContractsSurplus Lines Insurance
References
48
Case No. Index No. 510151/20
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

Normile v. DB Ins. Co., Ltd.

This case involves the interpretation of a general liability insurance policy's "Limitation of Coverage to Designated Premises or Project" endorsement. The plaintiff, Catherine Normile, was injured off-premises by an employee of 305 Union St. Station, Inc. (Kittery Restaurant) who was returning from a food delivery. Defendant DB Insurance Co., Ltd. (the insurer) disclaimed coverage, asserting the incident did not occur at the specified covered premises. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the policy's language, which limits coverage to operations "necessary or incidental to those premises," requires a direct premises-based connection, rather than merely an operation incidental to the business itself. Consequently, coverage was deemed inapplicable as the incident did not have the requisite spatial or circumstantial link to the designated premises.

Insurance LawGeneral LiabilityPolicy InterpretationDesignated PremisesOff-premises IncidentFood DeliverySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBodily InjuryCoverage Limitation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. 07-05-00188-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2007

Yorkshire Insurance Co., LTD. and Ocean Marine Insurance Co., LTD. v. Roy S. Seger, Individually and Shirley Faye Hoskins, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Randall Jay Seger

The case involves an appeal by Yorkshire Insurance Co., Ltd., and Ocean Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., against Roy Seger and Shirley Faye Hoskins. The insurers appealed a judgment of over $26 million in actual damages related to a "Stowers" action, stemming from the death of Randall Jay Seger in a drilling accident. The core issues involved whether the insurers were unauthorized, the applicability of a "leased-in worker" exclusion in their CGL policy, and whether the Segers' settlement demands were within policy limits. The court ruled that the 1993 amendments to the Insurance Code applied retroactively and affirmed that the Segers made a sufficient settlement demand within policy limits. However, it reversed the summary judgment on coverage, finding the "leased-in worker" exclusion unambiguous and potentially applicable, and also reversed the directed verdict on damages, as a fact issue remained regarding whether the underlying judgment was the result of a "fully adversarial trial." The case was thus largely remanded for a new trial.

Insurance disputeStowers actionNegligent failure to settleSurplus lines insuranceUnauthorized insurersContract defensesSummary judgmentDirected verdictDamagesFully adversarial trial
References
33
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 13,602 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