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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Ex Rel. E & R Construction Co. v. Guy H. James Construction Co.

E & R Construction Co., Inc. sued Guy H. James Construction Company and Federal Insurance Company under the Miller Act for breach of a subcontract related to the Cordell Hull Lock and Dam project. E & R presented twelve claims alleging material interference and breaches of contract by James, leading to increased costs and damages. The court found that James materially breached the contract through various actions, including wrongfully depositing shot rock, requiring extra work, and causing delays, entitling E & R to recover damages on several claims under a *quantum meruit* theory. However, the court denied claims regarding arbitrary dredge limits and dredge delay. The court also clarified that the surety, Federal Insurance Company, was not liable for certain delay and property damage claims.

Construction LawMiller ActSubcontractBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitDelay DamagesConstruction DisputesFederal CourtContract InterferenceSite Conditions
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

San Antonio Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of San Antonio

The San Antonio Building and Construction Trades Council (SABTC) and individual representatives challenged the City of San Antonio regarding prevailing wage requirements for construction workers on a convention center hotel project. SABTC argued that Chapter 2258 of the Texas Government Code mandated prevailing wages, but the trial court denied this, finding that despite being a 'public work', no 'public funds' were used for its construction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It determined that public funds pledged as security for revenue bonds, or the bonds themselves, did not constitute public funds used for the 'construction' of the project under the relevant statute.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic WorksPublic FundsAssociational StandingLabor LawDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Government CodeRevenue BondsHotel Occupancy TaxStatutory Interpretation
References
16
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

Forrest Construction Co. v. Laughlin

This action involves claims arising from the construction of a residence in Williamson County for James and Debbie Laughlin by Forrest Construction Company, LLC. Forrest Construction filed a breach-of-contract action against Mr. Laughlin and a quantum meruit action against Mrs. Laughlin, claiming Mr. Laughlin breached the contract by failing to pay. The Laughlins counterclaimed for negligent construction, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court initially found Mr. Laughlin in material breach, but also awarded damages to the Laughlins for negligent construction. On appeal, the Court found that Forrest Construction was the first to materially breach the contract by failing to provide proper documentation of costs and abandoning the project. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding that Mr. Laughlin breached the contract and the awards to Forrest Construction. It affirmed that the Laughlins were excused from giving notice to cure defects due to Forrest Construction's material breach. The case was remanded to the trial court to re-evaluate the damages for negligent construction and to address the issue of piercing the corporate veil against Thomas Naive.

Construction ContractBreach of ContractNegligent ConstructionQuantum MeruitCorporate Veil PiercingDamagesMaterial BreachHome ConstructionCost Plus ContractAppellate Review
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 1990

Public Administrator v. Trump Village Construction Corp.

The plaintiff's decedent, an employee of subcontractor Crown Plastering Corp., suffered fatal injuries after falling from scaffolding during a renovation project. The court affirmed an order that granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff Public Administrator regarding the liability of general contractor Charles Construction Corp. under Labor Law § 240 (1). It also affirmed partial summary judgment for property owner Trump Village Construction Corp. and lessee Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. against Charles Construction Corp. for common-law indemnity, finding their liability vicarious. Charles Construction Corp.'s motion for summary judgment against subcontractor Crown Plastering Corp. was denied due to unresolved factual issues regarding comparative fault.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffolding AccidentWorker FallVicarious LiabilityCommon-Law IndemnityGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityProximate CauseAppellate Affirmation
References
11
Case No. 13-22-00536-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

Graham Construction Services, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. City of Corpus Christi

This case involved a significant contract dispute between Graham Construction Services, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (Appellants) and the City of Corpus Christi (Appellee) concerning the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant. Graham alleged the City caused project delays and cost overruns, while the City counterclaimed for Graham's failure to complete project phases and defects in the UV disinfection system. Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a complex judgment with awards to both parties, resulting in a net payment to the City. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding the City's costs to complete Phase 2 and Graham's attorney's fees. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's award of $498,270 in delay damages to Graham and rendered judgment for the City to recover $559,000 in liquidated delay damages.

Construction LawContract DisputeBreach of ContractWastewater Treatment PlantLiquidated DamagesDelay DamagesPerformance BondCondition PrecedentMaterial BreachAttorney's Fees
References
65
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01663 [192 AD3d 1594]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2021

Chrisman v. Syracuse Soma Project, LLC

Michael Chrisman, an employee of EJ Construction Group, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping on snowy metal decking at a construction site. He sued Syracuse SOMA Project, LLC (owner) and Burke Contracting, LLC (general contractor) under Labor Law. Burke initiated a third-party action against Whitacre Engineering Co. (subcontractor for steel mesh) and EJ Construction Group, Inc. (subcontractor employing Chrisman) for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted third-party defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) liability. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the order, ruling that the violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) does not conclusively establish liability but is merely evidence of negligence, thus raising factual issues. The court also found no contractual indemnification between Burke and Whitacre due to the lack of a formal contract but erred in dismissing the contractual indemnification claim against EJ Construction Group, Inc. The order was modified by reinstating the fifth cause of action against EJ and denying plaintiff's cross motion entirely, and as modified, affirmed.

Construction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewNegligenceThird-Party Action
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 4,077 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