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

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. v. RFD 55th Street LLC

Plaintiff A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. sought to foreclose upon 76 mechanic’s liens filed against condominium units and asserted claims for breach of contract and quasi-contractual remedies. The defendants, including RFD 55th Street LLC and individual unit owners, moved to discharge the liens and dismiss the causes of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss all four causes of action. The mechanic's liens were found invalid under Lien Law § 13 (5) as the deeds of conveyance to third-party purchasers contained the required trust fund provision and were recorded before the liens were filed. The breach of contract claim against non-parties was dismissed due to lack of privity and insufficient allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The quasi-contractual claims were also dismissed as a valid written contract existed covering the disputed subject matter.

Mechanic's LiensLien LawMotion to DismissBreach of ContractQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentCorporate Veil PiercingPrivity of ContractConstruction Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Millennium Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Brown & Root Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff Millennium Petrochemicals Inc. sought indemnification from Defendant Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. for asbestos-related injury lawsuits filed against Millennium by Brown & Root employees. The dispute centered on a 1961 contract, subsequently amended in 1973 and 1994, regarding indemnification provisions. Millennium argued that the 1973 amendment obligated Brown & Root to indemnify it for its own negligence. Brown & Root moved for summary judgment, asserting that its indemnification duty ceased upon the contract's termination in 1995. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Brown & Root, ruling that the indemnification obligation terminated with the contract. Furthermore, the court held that even if the obligation survived, the 1994 amendment applied, and it did not satisfy the 'express negligence rule' required under Texas law to indemnify a party for its own negligence.

Contract DisputeIndemnification AgreementSummary JudgmentAsbestos ExposureExpress Negligence RuleContract TerminationAccrual of ClaimsTexas LawDeclaratory JudgmentSuccessor in Interest
References
23
Case No. 03-11-00327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. v. Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez

This case involves a lease dispute between Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. (Appellants) and Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez (Appellees). Appellants appealed a trial court's summary judgment which declared that Cedar Contracting's assignment of its commercial lease rights and subsequent sublease violated the lease terms with Connie Hernandez. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the lease terminated upon Hernandez's notice of termination and that Cedar Contracting did not have an unrestricted right to assign or sublease the property without the landlord's consent. The court concluded that the phrase 'or its assigns' in the lease did not override the explicit restriction and found no error in the trial court's decision that Hernandez was justified in interfering with the sublease.

Lease DisputeCommercial LeaseAssignment of LeaseSubleaseLandlord ConsentSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationNotice of TerminationTortious InterferenceAttorney's Fees
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sun Fab Industrial Contracting, Inc. v. Eric Lujan

The case involves an employer, Sun Fab Industrial Contracting, Inc., appealing the denial of its motion to compel arbitration in an employee-discrimination lawsuit filed by former employee Eric Lujan. Lujan alleged wrongful termination after filing a worker's compensation claim. The core dispute was whether the arbitration agreement, though included in an employee handbook that allowed for modification, was a separate, enforceable contract. The trial court initially denied arbitration, finding the agreement illusory due to the employer's right to unilaterally modify the handbook. On appeal, the court referenced *In re 24R, Inc.*, concluding that the arbitration agreement was a stand-alone document supported by mutual consideration and not subject to the handbook's modification clause. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationWorker's Compensation ClaimTexas LawContract EnforceabilityIllusory PromiseInterlocutory AppealEmployee HandbookFederal Arbitration ActMotion to Compel Arbitration
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc.

Appellant Leonardo Rodriguez appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc. in a suit concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rodriguez was injured while working and asserted negligence claims against Lockhart Contracting, arguing he was not an employee of Prime Source, the Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Lockhart Contracting had a co-employment agreement with. The appellate court identified a genuine issue of material fact regarding Rodriguez's employment status with Prime Source, as he had not completed the necessary employment paperwork. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had barred Rodriguez's suit based on the exclusive remedy provision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation DisputeExclusive Remedy DefenseProfessional Employer Organization LiabilityCo-employment RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor Code ComplianceWorkplace Injury ClaimAppellate Review StandardFactual DisputeNegligence Action
References
45
Case No. 02-16-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

Howard Michael Lauderback, Individually, and D/ B/A New Era Contract Services v. FMWB Inc.

Appellant Howard Michael Lauderback appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee FMWB, Inc. Lauderback, a contractor for mowing services with the Texas Department of Transportation, entered into a subcontract with FMWB. A dispute arose when Lauderback withheld payment from FMWB, alleging that FMWB's certificate of workers' compensation insurance was inadequate, despite a special provision in the original TDOT contract requiring such insurance. FMWB subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting claims for breach of contract and a suit on a sworn account. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that FMWB was not statutorily obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance under Texas Labor Code Ann. § 505.013, and Lauderback failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding FMWB's performance or his entitlement to an offset.

Breach of ContractSummary Judgment AppealSubcontract AgreementWorkers' Compensation PolicyTexas Labor CodeContractual PerformanceAffirmative DefenseOffset ClaimAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2007

FCI Group, Inc. v. City of New York

This case involves an action brought by a contractor against the City of New York and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) for the balance due on a construction contract. The defendants contended that the plaintiff forfeited its right to further payment due to the attempted bribery of two city employees by the plaintiff's president. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, but this Court reversed that decision. It found that the contract's narrow alternative dispute resolution clause was inapplicable to the dispute. Crucially, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was bound by the contract’s forfeiture provision and that its enforcement did not offend public policy, as the unlawful conduct was central to the performance of the contract, thereby barring recovery.

Construction ContractContract ForfeitureBriberyPublic PolicyAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Summary JudgmentUnlawful GratuitiesEthical ConductContract InterpretationNew York City Charter
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 7,624 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