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

Consolidated Laundries Corp. v. Craft

This case involves Consolidated Laundries Corp., the petitioner, and its former employee, Craft, the respondent. Consolidated sought to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement against Craft, which prohibited him from serving former customers or engaging in the laundry business within his former route for one year after termination. Both parties were subject to collective bargaining agreements with the Amalgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Consolidated initiated arbitration, which Craft challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court concluded that Section 301 did not apply because the dispute concerned uniquely personal rights, an individual could not invoke Section 301, and a motion to stay arbitration was not a suit for contract violation under the act. Furthermore, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 was denied as the claim did not directly arise under an act regulating commerce like the National Labor Relations Act. Consequently, the motions to remand the proceedings to the New York Supreme Court were granted due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Labor LawArbitrationRestrictive CovenantEmployment ContractFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemandDistrict Court
References
33
Case No. ADJ3732235 (STK 0198780)
Regular
Sep 13, 2010

CURTIS J. MORGAN vs. CONSOLIDATED PERSONNEL CORP, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding of dual employers: Consolidated Personnel Corp. (CPC) as the general employer and Bridgestone/Firestone (B/F) as the special employer. Despite CPC's insurer (Legion) being insolvent and CIGA being involved, B/F's insurer (ICSP) was found liable as "other insurance" because its policy covered B/F's joint and several liability to the applicant. The Board upheld that CIGA is relieved of obligation when other insurance is available, as per statute. Therefore, ICSP is responsible for the applicant's industrial injury benefits.

Dual employmentGeneral employerSpecial employerJoint and several liabilityInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)Covered claimsOther insuranceInsurer insolvencyCIGACollateral estoppel
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. City of Yonkers

Plaintiff Nekesha Moore was injured after tripping in a sidewalk depression in front of a property owned by 1225 Yonkers Ave. Realty Corp. and leased by 1225 Launderie Corp. The depression was allegedly caused by workers from Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. who had removed a section of the sidewalk. New York Ladder & Scaffold Corp. (NY Ladder) was contracted by the tenant to install a sidewalk shed. The Supreme Court denied NY Ladder's motion for summary judgment. However, an appellate court found that NY Ladder demonstrated it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, its contract was not a comprehensive property maintenance obligation, and it did not create the dangerous condition or have notice of it. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against NY Ladder.

Sidewalk depressionTrip and fallPremises liabilitySummary judgmentDuty of careContractual obligationSidewalk shedNotice of conditionAppellate reviewTort law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Komatsu America Corp. v. Portside Cargo Securing Co.

Komatsu America Corp. sued Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) for damage to cargo sustained during a train derailment. Komatsu alleged that Conrail, a connecting carrier, received the shipment in New Jersey and delivered it in damaged condition to Michigan. The plaintiff asserted federal question jurisdiction under the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 11707) and, alternatively, pendent party jurisdiction. The court, presided over by District Judge Lasker, determined there was no federal question jurisdiction because the Carmack Amendment applies only to the initial or delivering carrier, neither of which Conrail was found to be. Furthermore, the court declined to exercise pendent party jurisdiction based on judicial discretion, leading to the dismissal of the complaint against Conrail and the denial of Komatsu's related motions.

Cargo damageTrain derailmentCarmack AmendmentFederal question jurisdictionPendent party jurisdictionConnecting carrierDelivering carrierBill of ladingJudicial discretionSubject matter jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware

This negligence action involves plaintiff James Black, a forklift operator, who sustained injuries after falling through a hole in a trailer owned by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware and leased to Freeman Decorating Company. Consolidated moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. The court first addressed Black's argument for vicarious liability under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, which was rejected because the claim against Freeman was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, thus leaving nothing to impute. The court then examined Black's direct negligence claims against Consolidated, including constructive notice of the hole, negligent inspection, and inadequate lighting in the trailer. The court found Black's evidence insufficient to establish constructive notice, dismissed the negligent inspection claim due to lack of substantiation, and rejected the inadequate lighting claim as not being a substantial cause of the injuries given the forklift's headlights. Consequently, Consolidated's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Negligence actionSummary judgmentTrailer defectHole in floorWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Constructive noticeNegligent inspectionInadequate lightingVicarious liability
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This consolidated opinion addresses the enforceability of broad indemnification agreements between general contractors and subcontractors under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, especially when the general contractor is found partially negligent. The Court reviewed two appeals: Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. and Stottlar v Ginsburg Dev. Corp. In both instances, subcontractor employees suffered injuries, leading to claims against general contractors who, in turn, sought contractual indemnification. The Court concluded that because the agreements sought full indemnification, even where the general contractor contributed to the negligence, they were entirely void and unenforceable under the statute. The legislative intent behind § 5-322.1 is to prevent contractors from contractually shifting liability for their own negligence, whether in whole or in part, to subcontractors, thereby affirming the public policy against such clauses.

Indemnification agreementGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1Subcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor negligenceConstruction project injuriesWorkers' compensation insuranceCommercial general liabilityStatutory interpretationPublic policyContractual indemnification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

197 Merrick Road Corp. v. 185 Merrick Road Associates Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the consolidation of two distinct actions. The defendants, 185 Merrick Road Associates Corp. and R.V.J. Construction Corp., sought to consolidate action No. 1, which involved injunctive relief and breach of a license agreement due to excavation work, with action No. 2, concerning wrongful death stemming from alleged negligence and Labor Law violations during excavation. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied consolidation. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the two actions lacked significant common questions of law and fact and that their disparate issues would not benefit from consolidation.

Appellate DecisionConsolidation MotionInjunctive ReliefBreach of License AgreementWrongful DeathNegligenceLabor Law ViolationsCommon Questions of Law and FactJudicial DiscretionNassau County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2001

LaBarbera v. C. Volante Corp.

This action, brought under the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA, sought recovery of delinquent pension fund contributions from October 1, 1993, to June 30, 1997. The court previously granted default judgment against C. Volante Corp. and C. Volante Trucking Corp. Plaintiffs, trustees of Local 282 Funds, moved for summary judgment against the remaining defendant, Vital Trucking Corp. The court found C. Volante Corp. liable for contributions based on its course of conduct, adopting collective bargaining agreements. C. Volante Trucking Corp. was found jointly liable under the 'single employer' theory due to shared operations, management, and ownership with C. Volante Corp. Vital Trucking Corp. was found jointly and severally liable under the 'alter ego' theory, as it was formed shortly after Volante/Trucking ceased operations, sharing substantially identical business purpose, equipment, customers, and management with the Volante family, indicating an attempt to avoid CBA obligations. The court denied Vital's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion, adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation for damages.

Labor Management Relations ActEmployee Retirement Income Security ActPension Fund ContributionsDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentSingle Employer DoctrineAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion Labor
References
16
Case No. 89 N.Y.2d 786
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1997

ITRI BRICK CORP v. Aetna Cas.

This case clarifies the enforceability of indemnification agreements in construction contracts under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. The Court of Appeals held that such agreements, if they purport to indemnify a general contractor for any portion of damages caused by its own negligence, are entirely void and unenforceable as against public policy, rather than merely partially unenforceable. The decision stemmed from two consolidated appeals, Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and Stottlar v Ginsburg Development Corp., where general contractors were found partially negligent for worker injuries. The Court affirmed the judgment in Itri and reversed the Appellate Division's decision in Stottlar, reinstating the Supreme Court's original judgment. The Court emphasized the legislative intent to prevent contractors from shifting liability for their own negligence.

Indemnification AgreementConstruction LawSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceStatutory InterpretationGeneral Obligations LawInsurance CoverageVoid ContractPublic PolicyNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Motors Corp. v. Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp.

Plaintiff General Motors Corp. ("GM") obtained a preliminary injunction against defendants Roth and Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp. for trademark infringement related to "Dexron" automatic transmission fluid. Subsequently, defendants moved the court to permit them to repackage and sell the impounded, allegedly infringing goods, or alternatively, to have GM remove the goods from their warehouse, citing health and safety hazards. GM opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion seeking an order holding defendants in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction by distributing a brochure displaying the "Dexron" mark at a trade show. The Court denied defendants' motions to repackage, sell, or remove the goods. While finding defendants technically in civil contempt for the brochure distribution, the Court decided against immediate sanctions, noting the violation appeared inadvertent and GM had not yet demonstrated actual damages, but ordered defendants to provide an accounting and allowed GM to present proof of damages at trial.

Trademark InfringementPreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtCivil ContemptRepackaging of GoodsImpoundment OrderAdvertising ViolationCompensatory DamagesSanctionsTrade Show Brochure
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,713 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