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

Pedro Gonzalez & Maria Gomez v. Vatr Construction LLC & All American Roofing & Construction

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a general contractor, VATR Construction, LLC (VC), and a subcontractor, All American Roofing & Construction, in a lawsuit brought by the Estate of Roger Alexis Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a roofer, suffered fatal injuries after falling from a roof due to not using safety equipment. The Estate alleged negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se against VC and All American. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that neither VC nor All American owed a contractual duty or exercised actual control over Gonzalez's work or safety, and that OSHA regulations do not establish negligence per se in this context. Furthermore, the court rejected the Estate's argument that Gonzalez was a third-party beneficiary of upstream contracts, concluding that summary judgment was properly granted on all claims.

Construction AccidentFatal InjuryRooferFall ProtectionSafety EquipmentNegligenceGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
52
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
Apr 04, 2007

Uzar v. Louis P. Ciminelli Construction Co.

Plaintiffs appealed an order that granted summary judgment to defendants Turner Construction Company and Louis P Ciminelli Construction Co., Inc., dismissing their complaint in a personal injury action arising from a construction accident involving Robert Uzar. The Supreme Court's decision was affirmed, with the appellate court determining that Turner, as construction manager, was not liable under Labor Law § 241 (6) because it lacked responsibility for worker safety and control over subcontractors. Additionally, Ciminelli was found not liable under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 as it did not have supervisory control over the plaintiff's work or create the dangerous condition. The appellate court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that Turner acted as a general contractor or agent of the County, and similarly found no triable issue of fact regarding Ciminelli's liability. Therefore, the order dismissing the complaint was unanimously affirmed.

Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law ClaimsContractor LiabilityConstruction ManagerWorker SafetySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligencePersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
11
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17 v. Union Concrete & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1984

Moore Construction Co. v. Clarksville Department of Electricity

This case concerns a contractor's claim for delay damages arising from the construction of an office building and warehouse for the Clarksville Department of Electricity. Moore Construction Company sued the Department, Kennon Construction Company (a co-prime contractor), and Cincinnati Insurance Company (Kennon's bonding company), alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and third-party beneficiary claims. The trial court awarded Moore Construction Company $2,719.75 for extra work but denied delay damages, citing a lack of a written change order. On appeal, the court affirmed the award for extra work and modified the judgment to include an additional $8,986.08 in delay damages. The appellate court ruled that the Department's conduct waived the written change order requirement, and that Moore was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between Kennon and the Department, allowing recovery for certain increased supervisory, overhead, and equipment-related costs resulting from the delay.

Construction LawContract BreachDelay DamagesThird-Party BeneficiaryWaiver of Contract TermsConstruction ProjectPrime ContractorsSurety BondsOverhead CostsLabor Costs
References
40
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

Toro v. Plaza Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, a truck driver for Rite-Way Internal Removal, Inc., suffered face and eye injuries while compacting construction debris at a renovation site, which subsequently struck him. He filed a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6). The court determined that the plaintiff was not a protected worker under this statute because his duties, limited to driving a garbage truck and picking up debris, did not constitute 'construction, excavation or demolition' work. Despite a contract for demolition between general contractor Plaza Construction Corp. and Rite-Way, the plaintiff was not involved in demolition activities. Consequently, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed, as the plaintiff's work was considered a separate activity not covered by the statute's protective scope.

Labor Law § 241(6)Construction Site AccidentTruck Driver InjuryWorker ProtectionScope of EmploymentDebris RemovalDemolition WorkPlaintiff Not ProtectedThird-Party DefendantGeneral Contractor Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tenalp Construction Corp. v. Roberts

This case addresses whether the New York State Commissioner of Labor can mandate a public works contractor to pay prevailing wages to an employee who performs both supervisory and nonsupervisory tasks under Labor Law § 220. Petitioner Tenalp Construction Corp. challenged a prior determination by the Commissioner that it had willfully underpaid Steven Sauter, a superintendent/carpenter, for his carpentry duties on a public school construction project. The court affirmed the Commissioner's finding, emphasizing that an employee's job title does not override the nature of the work performed. It held that if the work is predominantly physical and falls under the statute's protection, the prevailing wage applies, regardless of additional supervisory roles. The court underscored the necessity for a liberal interpretation of Labor Law § 220 to fulfill its protective intent for workers.

prevailing wageLabor Lawpublic workssupervisory dutiesnonsupervisory dutiescarpenterwillfulnessstatutory interpretationNew York State Department of Laboremployee classification
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 12,651 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