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. 2023 NY Slip Op 01554 [214 AD3d 1218]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2023

Bahnuk v. Countryway Ins. Co.

Paul Bahnuk, an emergency medical technician, was injured while responding to a call and subsequently sued Pauline Williams, the property owner. Williams' insurer, Countryway Insurance Company, disclaimed coverage. Williams and Bahnuk agreed to a confession of judgment for $100,000, with Bahnuk agreeing not to execute against Williams but instead pursue Countryway under Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2). Bahnuk then commenced an action against Countryway. Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding Countryway's notice of disclaimer to Bahnuk insufficient but also a triable issue of fact regarding collusion between Bahnuk and Williams. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, agreeing that the notice was insufficient and that a factual question remained regarding collusion.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentConfession of JudgmentCollusionPersonal InjuryHomeowner's InsuranceAppellate ReviewNotice RequirementsInsurance Policy Exclusions
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AMS Construction Co. v. K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc.

This case concerns an employer, K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc. (KHK), suing its staff leasing company, AMS Construction Company, Inc. d/b/a AMS Staff Leasing (AMS), for failing to provide workers' compensation insurance to an injured employee, Osman Sosa, as per their agreement. A jury found AMS liable for breach of contract and fraud. AMS appealed the decision, raising arguments regarding the trial court's jurisdiction, the sufficiency of evidence for breach of contract and fraud, KHK's alleged waiver of claims, and public policy concerns due to alleged collusion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court had proper jurisdiction, that legally sufficient evidence supported the breach of contract findings, that AMS did not preserve its waiver claim, and that there was no evidence of an improper collusive agreement.

Breach of ContractWorkers' Compensation InsuranceStaff Leasing AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionFraud ClaimWaiver DefenseCollusive AgreementMary Carter AgreementExclusive Remedy ProvisionTexas Labor Code
References
25
Case No. ADJ8067615
Regular
Apr 15, 2015

Latonia Bowman vs. SARA LEE CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an attorney's request to be relieved due to irreconcilable differences with his client. The applicant had accused the attorney of misconduct and collusion with the insurance company. Although the applicant later expressed remorse and a desire to be a better client, the Appeals Board found the attorney-client relationship had irrevocably deteriorated. Consequently, the Board granted the attorney's petition and relieved his firm as counsel for the applicant.

Petition for RemovalDismissal of AttorneyIrreconcilable DifferencesAttorney-Client PrivilegeMisconductFraudCollusionBreakdown of RelationshipWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. 01-09-00360-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

AMS Construction Company, Inc. D/B/A AMS Staff Leasing (AMS) v. Osman L. Sosa K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc.

An employer, K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc., sued its staff leasing company, AMS Construction Company, Inc. d/b/a AMS Staff Leasing, for breaching their agreement to provide workers' compensation insurance for an injured employee. A jury found AMS liable for breach of contract and fraud, leading to a judgment for KHK. AMS appealed, raising issues of subject matter jurisdiction, sufficiency of evidence for breach of contract, waiver defense, and an alleged collusive agreement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, determining that the trial court had jurisdiction and that legally sufficient evidence supported the breach of contract finding.

Workers' CompensationBreach of ContractFraudStaff Leasing AgreementEmployee LeasingSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewIndemnificationTexas LawJury Verdict
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1985

Ianielli v. North River Insurance

This case addresses the apportionment of a workers’ compensation carrier's share of litigation costs in a third-party action. The plaintiff sought to re-evaluate his settlement in light of a subsequent Court of Appeals decision (Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund) that allowed for apportionment based on the total benefit the carrier receives, including estimated future benefits. However, the plaintiff's third-party action was settled, and a general release signed, prior to this new decisional law. The court affirmed Special Term's denial of the plaintiff's application, ruling that a valid and binding stipulation of settlement terminates existing litigation and precludes reopening the claim to apply a change in decisional law, especially when no fraud, collusion, or mistake is shown. The court emphasized that the case was no longer in the normal litigating process.

Workers' CompensationLitigation CostsEquitable ApportionmentSettlement AgreementRetroactive ApplicationDecisional LawInsurance CarrierThird-Party ActionFuture BenefitsWaiver of Rights
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1999

White v. White Rose Food

This action, brought under Section 301 of the LMRA, arises from the disbursement of settlement funds after a plant closing and a labor strike involving White Rose Food and Local No. 138. Plaintiffs, former employees, contended that an 'Amendment to Settlement Agreement' which deducted employer payroll taxes from a $1,500,000 settlement fund was entered into without required union membership ratification. The court found that Local 138's leadership acted in bad faith and arbitrarily by concealing this amendment and its financial impact from members, thereby breaching its duty of fair representation. Consequently, the court held the defendant White Rose liable due to its collusion with the union leadership in this concealment. Judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for the deducted amount plus prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees were also awarded.

Duty of Fair RepresentationUnion RatificationSettlement AgreementPayroll Tax DeductionsBreach of ContractConcealmentBad Faith ConductApparent AuthorityExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAttorneys' Fees
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC

This case involves a dispute where Plaintiffs Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. (WSDI) and Williams-Sonoma Retail Services, Inc. (WSRSI) sued Defendants Timothy Stover and Arhaus, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), breach of contract, breach of the duty of loyalty, and tortious interference with contract. The defendants filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to the alleged indispensable party status of Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (WSI) and improper creation of diversity jurisdiction. The Court denied in part the defendants' motions, finding that WSDI and WSRSI are real parties in interest and WSI is not an indispensable party, and no improper or collusive creation of jurisdiction occurred.

Trade SecretsBreach of ContractDuty of LoyaltyTortious InterferenceMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionIndispensable PartyRule 12(b)(1)
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tucker v. American Building Maintenance

Pro se plaintiff Augustine Tucker brought an action against his former and current employers, American Building Maintenance Company of New York, Inc. (ABM) and Collins Building Services (CBS), to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration, conducted under a collective bargaining agreement, denied Tucker's grievance regarding a change in his work shift and loss of overtime pay. Tucker alleged the award was arbitrary, fraudulent, and a product of collusion, and that his union attorney provided negligent representation. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Tucker lacked standing, failed to state a claim, and the action was untimely. The court granted the motion, finding Tucker did not provide sufficient facts to support claims of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, nor did he meet the rigorous standards under the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate an arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissFederal Arbitration ActPro Se LitigationWorkplace DisputeOvertime PayWork Shift Change
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Musto v. Transport Workers Union of America

Plaintiffs, former Title II Utility Men for American Airlines, represented by TWU and Local 501, alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act. They claimed the unions breached their duty of fair representation by deliberately eliminating their jobs during negotiations in 2002, leading to layoffs, and by failing to pursue their grievances. Plaintiffs also asserted American improperly laid them off, breaching collective bargaining agreements and Letters of Understanding. The court denied the unions' motions to dismiss the fair representation claims, finding sufficient evidence of bad faith and discrimination. However, plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages against the unions were dismissed. American's motion to dismiss, arguing minor disputes and lack of collusion, was also denied, as the court found a valid hybrid claim for breach of the CBA inextricably linked to the union's fair representation breach.

Railway Labor ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementLayoffsSeniority RightsContract NegotiationGrievance ProcedureStatute of LimitationsPunitive DamagesHybrid Actions
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 19 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