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. M2004-00322-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2005

C.R. Batts Const. v. 101 Construction Co.

This appeal arises from a breach of contract action filed by C.R. Batts Construction, LLC against 101 Construction Company for unpaid services related to a subcontract for site preparation. The initial dispute stemmed from disagreements over the quantity of rock excavated and the subsequent payments. The trial court found in favor of C.R. Batts, awarding damages of $24,260.11 along with pre-judgment interest. The defendants, 101 Construction and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, appealed this decision, challenging the evidentiary support for the award and the discretion used in granting pre-judgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding its implicit factual findings and its discretion in awarding interest, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against these findings.

Breach of ContractSubcontract AgreementSite PreparationExcavation DisputePre-judgment InterestAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityTrial Court DiscretionContract Termination
References
24
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

MSK Construction, Inc. v. Mayse Construction Company

MSK Construction, Inc. (MSK) filed a breach of oral contract action against Mayse Construction Company (Mayse) for failure to pay for equipment and fuel used in a construction project for the City of Athens. Mayse denied liability and filed a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, alleging MSK failed to include concrete testing costs in their estimate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MSK, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, and denied Mayse's counterclaim. Mayse appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, finding a valid oral contract existed and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Breach of Oral ContractConstruction DisputeEquipment UsePrejudgment InterestNegligent MisrepresentationSubcontractor AgreementVendor AgreementAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationsDamages
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NYU Hospitals Center v. HRH Construction LLC (In re HRH Construction LLC)

NYU Hospitals Center appealed a Bankruptcy Court ruling in favor of HRH Construction LLC and Curtis Partition Corporation concerning a construction contract dispute for a radiology center renovation. NYU alleged HRH breached the contract by failing to proceed with Phase 2, while HRH claimed NYU obstructed its performance by contacting a replacement contractor and failing to make timely payments. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's findings that NYU breached the contract and its awards for damages to HRH and Curtis. However, the District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's holding that NYU held monies due to Curtis in trust under New York Lien Law Article 3-A, concluding no trust funds were established. All other claims by NYU against Curtis, including willful exaggeration of lien and indemnification, were denied.

Construction DisputeBreach of ContractBankruptcy AppealContractual ObligationsTimely PaymentsSubcontractor DisputesMechanic's LienIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party BeneficiaryFrustration of Performance
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fra-Dee Construction Inc. v. Roberts

In 1983, Fra-Dee Construction, Inc. contracted with the Office of General Services for renovation work at the Alden Correctional Facility. A dispute arose over whether the work should be categorized as residential or building construction for prevailing wage purposes, with Fra-Dee paying the lower residential rate. An audit and subsequent administrative hearing determined that the higher building construction rate applied, and Fra-Dee was found liable for back wages, punitive interest, and a civil penalty. Although the violation was deemed non-willful due to inexperience, the Commissioner of Labor affirmed the determination. The court, however, modified the decision by reducing the punitive interest rate from 10% to 6%, while affirming the applicability of the building construction rate and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Prevailing wagepublic worksLabor Law 220residential constructionbuilding constructionwage scheduleadministrative hearingArticle 78 proceedingpunitive interestnon-willful violation
References
1
Case No. 01-24-00702-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2025

Venable's Construction, Inc v. Aspen Midstream, LLC

Venable’s Construction, Inc. (Venable’s) sued Aspen Midstream, LLC (Aspen) over a construction contract for a 56-mile pipeline. Venable’s claimed an additional $1.77 million for “Extra Work” beyond the $39 million lump sum price, arguing additional footages and bores were required due to route changes. Aspen denied owing extra compensation and counterclaimed for a declaration that Venable’s had a contractual duty to defend an Aspen affiliate in a separate lawsuit by Waller County landowners. The trial court sided with Aspen on both the pricing dispute and the duty to defend. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on the lump sum price, concluding Venable's performed "Work" not "Extra Work" under the contract. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's declaration regarding the duty to defend, finding no live dispute because Aspen had opted to provide its own defense and reserved indemnification for later. The case was remanded for reconsideration of attorney's fees.

Construction ContractLump Sum PriceExtra WorkQuantum MeruitPromissory EstoppelDuty to DefendIndemnification ClauseDeclaratory Judgment ActPipeline ConstructionRisk Allocation
References
23
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 30039[U]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance

Plaintiffs Extell West 57th Street and Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. sued their insurers, including Zurich and Travelers, after a construction crane at the One57 building was damaged by Superstorm Sandy. The insurers denied coverage under a builder's risk policy, leading to a dispute over whether the crane qualified as a 'temporary work' and if it was excluded as 'contractor's tools.' The lower court denied summary judgment, finding factual issues. On appeal, the majority granted summary judgment to the defendants, declaring no coverage. The dissenting opinion argues that the crane should be considered a 'temporary structure' and the 'contractor's tools' exclusion should not apply, but concurs that summary judgment for plaintiffs was improper due to a factual dispute regarding whether the crane's value was included in the total project value.

Insurance coverage disputeBuilder's risk policyTemporary structuresContractor's tools exclusionSuperstorm SandyConstruction crane damageSummary judgmentContract interpretationEjusdem generisNoscitur a sociis
References
17
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Quality Building Construction, LLC v. Jagiello Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and discharge a bond. Jagiello Construction Corp. appealed an order that denied its cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award, which Quality Building Construction, LLC sought to confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court held that Jagiello failed to meet its "heavy burden" to establish grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1). It found that Jagiello had sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing and was not prejudiced by a scrivener's error in the demand for arbitration that misidentified the claimant.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate PracticeDue ProcessNotice RequirementsScrivener's ErrorPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction Co.

Sean O’Sullivan, a cement and concrete laborer, was injured on October 14, 2000, when he tripped over a pipe at a multistory construction site in Manhattan. The property was owned by 251 East 51st Street Corp., with IDI Construction Company as the general contractor. O'Sullivan's employer, Cosner Construction, was the concrete subcontractor, and Teman Electrical Construction, Inc. was the electrical subcontractor. This document presents a dissenting opinion arguing that while there is no viable claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), questions of fact remain regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, which should preclude summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action. The dissent highlights that the pipe, which was permanently embedded in the floor and not barricaded or sufficiently visible, could constitute an unsafe condition. It suggests the owner and general contractor might be liable due to their potential input into the pipe's placement and the general contractor's assigned 'site safety manager'. The dissenting judges would reverse the extent of denying summary judgment for the defendant with respect to the Labor Law § 200 claim and reinstate it.

Construction accidentTrip and fallLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceWorkplace safetySummary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilityProperty owner liabilitySubcontractor responsibility
References
9
Case No. 09-20-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Magnum Air, Inc., Gamma Construction Co., Colonial American Casualty and Surety Company, and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Maven Mechanical, LLC, Ralph Wheeler, and Matthew Janecek

This appeal concerns a contract dispute following a jury verdict where Magnum Air, Inc. and co-appellants challenged findings that Magnum breached agreements first and suffered no damages. The case involved four construction projects and centered on allegations of Magnum's failure to provide construction schedules and subsequent withholding of payments, and Maven's alleged delays and failure to pay suppliers. The appellate court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings. The trial court's judgment was affirmed, concluding that Magnum's arguments regarding conflicting jury answers were not preserved. The decision reinforces the jury's role in assessing witness credibility and resolving conflicting evidence in contract disputes.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury VerdictMaterial Breach"Pay When Paid" ClauseConstruction LawSubcontractorsDamages
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 8,011 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