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
Mar 04, 2011

East 51st Street Crane Collapse Litigation v. Lincoln General Insurance

This Supreme Court order addresses an insurance coverage dispute stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which led to multiple claims against the property owner, East 51st Street Development Company, LLC. The primary conflict involved insurance companies Lincoln General, AXIS Surplus, and Interstate Fire and Casualty regarding their duty to defend East 51st Street and reimburse Illinois Union Insurance Company for defense costs. Initially, the Supreme Court granted various motions for summary judgment, establishing duties to defend and determining policy priority. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying Lincoln General's assertions of excess coverage and declaring Lincoln General primarily obligated to provide coverage to East 51st Street. Other aspects, such as AXIS and Interstate's duty to share defense costs, and East 51st Street's status as an additional insured, were affirmed.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendDefense Costs ReimbursementPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSummary Judgment MotionAdditional InsuredCrane Collapse LitigationPolicy InterpretationInsurance Policy Limits
References
9
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06419 [154 AD3d 139]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2017

Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed consolidated wrongful death actions stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which caused the deaths of Donald Christopher Leo and Ramadan Kurtaj. Plaintiffs, including Maria Leo and Xhevahire Sinanaj, sued James F. Lomma and his companies (J.F. Lomma, Inc. and New York Crane & Equipment Corp.) alleging negligence and reckless conduct related to a defective crane bearing. The court affirmed the jury's decision to pierce the corporate veil and to preclude a defense expert, finding Lomma personally liable due to his actions. However, the appellate court significantly reduced the jury's substantial awards for preimpact terror, conscious pain and suffering, and punitive damages, deeming them excessive. The judgment was modified, contingent on the plaintiffs stipulating to the reduced amounts.

Crane CollapseWrongful DeathCorporate Veil PiercingPunitive DamagesExpert Testimony PreclusionNegligenceConstruction AccidentConscious Pain and SufferingPreimpact TerrorDefective Weld
References
33
Case No. ADJ11079754; ADJ10653838; ADJ10975554
Regular
Sep 05, 2025

SUSANA RESENDIZ MORALES vs. COAST SEAFOOD COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Susana Resendiz Morales sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Orders (F&O) issued on June 18, 2025, which found no new and further disability from her prior injuries with Coast Seafood Company and dismissed her Petitions for New and Further Disability. Applicant contended the WCJ did not adequately consider her mental health evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, concluding that any new and further disability, including mental health issues, was attributable to a subsequent injury with a different employer. Consequently, the WCAB denied the Petition for Reconsideration.

ADJ11079754ADJ10653838ADJ10975554Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersNew and Further DisabilityFuture Medical CareWCJ ReportLabor Code Section 5909Transmission Date
References
6
Case No. ADJ2123966 (SFO 0510193)
Regular
Jul 20, 2015

TOMMY GUTIERREZ vs. BIGGE CRANE & RIGGING COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over the necessity of prescription pain medications for Tommy Gutierrez. The defendant, Bigge Crane & Rigging Company, sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that awarded the medications. The core issue was the defendant's failure to prove timely communication of their utilization review (UR) decision to the applicant's treating physician, Dr. Abeles, within 24 hours. As a result, the UR decision was deemed untimely and invalid, allowing the WCAB to determine medical necessity. The Board affirmed the original award, finding substantial medical evidence supported the applicant's continued need for the medications to manage chronic pain.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewRequest For AuthorizationUntimely CommunicationFindings & AwardPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentAdministrative Director RuleBodamDubon
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2000

Jaeger v. Costanzi Crane, Inc.

Plaintiff Herman Jaeger, an employee of Jett Industries, Inc., was injured at a bridge construction site in December 1996 while attempting to straighten a rubber bearing plate as a 36-ton concrete beam was being lowered by two cranes. One of the cranes was provided by defendant Costanzi Crane, Inc. Plaintiff and his wife commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Defendant Costanzi Crane, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the court found that plaintiff's injuries were not caused by a malfunction or lack of a protective device, thus the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim failed. Furthermore, since defendant had no supervisory control over the activities that led to the injury, the claims under common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) also failed. The order was modified, granting summary judgment to Costanzi Crane, Inc. and dismissing the complaint against it.

Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentCrane OperationWorkplace SafetyNegligenceSupervisory ControlGravity-Related AccidentThird-Party LiabilityInjury ClaimBridge Construction
References
5
Case No. CA 10-00545
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

HAHN AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (plaintiff) initiated a breach of contract action against American Zurich Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendants), contending that bills issued under insurance contracts were time-barred. Defendants counterclaimed for damages stemming from plaintiff's alleged breach of these contracts. The Supreme Court partially granted plaintiff's cross-motion, deeming counterclaims for debts arising over six years prior as time-barred. Concurrently, it permitted defendants to utilize a $400,000 letter of credit to satisfy any outstanding debt, including those deemed time-barred. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the use of the letter of credit for time-barred debts, reasoning that the statute of limitations only bars the remedy, not the underlying obligation. The court also affirmed that defendants' counterclaims for debts over six years old were time-barred, as the right to demand payment accrued earlier. Finally, the court modified the order to dismiss plaintiff's second through fourth causes of action. A dissenting opinion argued that the counterclaims were not time-barred, asserting that the cause of action accrued upon demand and refusal of payment, not merely when the right to demand payment existed.

Breach of contractInsurance contractsStatute of limitationsLetter of creditSummary judgmentAppellate reviewContract interpretationTime-barred claimsAccrual of cause of actionRetrospective premiums
References
23
Case No. ADJ3670273 (STK 0188965)
Regular
May 20, 2013

ROBERT CRANE vs. SMT RESOURCE/GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Granite State Insurance Company on behalf of their insured, SMT Resource. The defendant contests the administrative law judge's (WCJ) finding of total permanent disability for applicant Robert Crane, stemming from an admitted industrial injury. Defendant argues the WCJ improperly excluded their vocational expert's testimony and claims the permanent disability finding lacks substantial medical evidence. The Board reviewed the petition, the WCJ's report, and the record, ultimately denying the petition for reconsideration. They adopted the WCJ's report as the decision, affirming the award of total permanent disability to the applicant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAward and Orderindustrial injurywarehouse managertotal permanent disabilityvocational expertopen labor marketvocational rehabilitation expert
References
0
Case No. ADJ16082204
Regular
Jul 28, 2025

MARIA DEL PILAR CAZARES MEZA vs. WEST COAST BERRY FARMS, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Maria Del Pilar Cazares Meza sustained an industrial injury in March 2022. Defendant, West Coast Berry Farms and Alaska National Insurance Company, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a WCJ, which found 64% permanent disability without apportionment. Defendant argued the primary treating physician's report lacked substantial medical evidence for apportionment. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, finding it timely filed but concluding that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof on apportionment by not providing evidence of prior awards or medical opinions on overlap.

Permanent disabilityApportionmentLabor Code section 4664Substantial medical evidencePrimary treating physicianQualified medical evaluatorPetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardReport and RecommendationTimeliness
References
6
Case No. ADJ6840627; ADJ8645103
Regular
Mar 17, 2025

Dora Sosa, Gerardo Sosa vs. West Coast Computer Exchanges, Inc.; Everest National Insurance Company

Applicant Dora Sosa and Gerardo Sosa sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained on January 25, 2005, to the head, neck, right shoulder, and psyche while employed by West Coast Computer Exchanges, Inc., insured by Everest National Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) issued Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders on December 19, 2024, finding various points in favor of the applicant, including 65% permanent partial disability and temporary disability indemnity. Defendant petitioned for reconsideration, arguing against the WCJ's findings regarding the disability rating, temporary disability indemnity rate, duration of temporary disability, reimbursement for chiropractic treatment, and EDD's lien. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, deferring a final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record, citing several issues that require more examination.

ADJ6840627ADJ8645103Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Awards and OrdersCognitive impairmentPermanent partial disabilityTemporary disability indemnityQME reportingAMA GuidesLabor Code section 4656
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hakim v. Armstrong Rubber Co.

Joseph Hakim initiated a negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries after a forklift tire he was changing exploded. He alleged that Armstrong Rubber Company negligently designed and manufactured the tire, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company negligently designed and manufactured the wheel rim, and Clark Equipment Company negligently manufactured and failed to inspect the forklift. Armstrong and Firestone successfully moved for summary judgment by presenting evidence that they did not manufacture the specific tire or rim involved, which Hakim failed to rebut with sufficient evidence. Conversely, Clark Equipment Company's motion for summary judgment was denied due to its failure to provide any evidence disproving its involvement in the forklift's manufacture or inspection.

Forklift accidentTire explosionProduct liabilitySummary judgmentNegligenceManufacturing defectDesign defectInspection failureHearsay evidencePrima facie case
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,909 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