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

In Re Cornwall Hill Realty, Inc.

The debtor, Cornwall Hill Realty, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and moved to reject a consulting and management contract with Lori-Kay Management Corp. Cornwall argued the contract was executory under 11 U.S.C. § 365(a). Lori-Kay opposed, asserting the agreement was not an executory contract. The court found that Lori-Kay had no further duties to perform under the contract, as its stated obligations were discretionary and essentially provided a mechanism for additional purchase price payments to Lori-Kay, which was the former owner of the property. Therefore, the court concluded that the contract was not executory and denied Cornwall’s motion to reject it. Lori-Kay's claim was deemed an unsecured, fixed prepetition claim.

BankruptcyChapter 11Executory ContractContract RejectionSecured ClaimUnsecured ClaimPrepetition ClaimInstallment Sales ContractReal EstateSubdivision Approval
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Child World, Inc.

Child World, Inc., a debtor in Chapter 11, sought to reject 22 employment contracts with key employees whose services were terminated post-petition. The debtor aimed to classify resulting claims as pre-petition unsecured claims rather than administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 365(g)(1). Respondent Herbert Hodus argued against rejection and contended that his severance pay should be an administrative expense priority. The court, applying a business judgment standard, granted the debtor's motion to reject the contracts. However, it determined that the salary continuation provision in the contracts did not constitute severance pay under Massachusetts law, thus classifying any breach of this obligation as a pre-petition unsecured general claim rather than an administrative expense.

BankruptcyExecutory ContractsContract RejectionSeverance PayAdministrative ExpensesUnsecured ClaimsChapter 11Business Judgment RulePost-Petition EmploymentMitigation of Damages
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1985

In Re Continental Airlines Corp.

The case concerns Continental Airlines' motion to disallow or estimate at zero value the contract rejection damages claimed by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) following Continental's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Continental had rejected its collective bargaining agreement with ALPA, and ALPA subsequently filed a $408 million claim for damages. The court asserted jurisdiction over the claim, rejecting ALPA's argument for deferral to a specialized tribunal. The court ultimately concluded that ALPA's claim for lost future wages lacked merit because the collective bargaining agreement did not guarantee employment and Continental would have ceased operations regardless. Additionally, the court found ALPA's damage calculations flawed as they extended beyond the contract's termination date. Consequently, the court disallowed ALPA's claim entirely and estimated its value at zero.

BankruptcyContract RejectionCollective Bargaining AgreementAirline IndustryLabor LawDamages EstimationBankruptcy JurisdictionArbitration DeferralRailway Labor ActChapter 11 Reorganization
References
90
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Petrillo v. Durr Mechanical Construction, Inc.

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which was unanimously affirmed by an appellate panel. The order granted summary judgment to third-party defendants Proven Electrical Contracting Co. and Barrier Electrical Contracting, Inc., leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint filed by Durr. The court determined that Durr's claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against Proven, the plaintiff's employer, were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 because the plaintiff's injuries were not considered "grave." Additionally, Durr failed to demonstrate the existence of contracts requiring indemnification or insurance procurement from Proven. Barrier was also granted summary judgment after establishing it was not present at the job site during the accident and had no relevant contractual obligations to Durr. Durr's speculative request for further discovery was rejected as insufficient grounds to deny summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawContributionCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationInsurance ProcurementGrave InjuryEmployer LiabilityAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Penn Traffic Co.

The Penn Traffic Company, a Chapter 11 debtor, sought to reject a Project Agreement with COR Route 5 Company, LLC, under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The agreement involved a land exchange, supermarket construction, and a lease-back. COR had completed all its obligations, including tendering a $3.5 million reimbursement and the signed lease, but Penn Traffic refused to accept. The court denied the motion, ruling that the Project Agreement was not an executory contract when the motion was filed, as COR had substantially performed its duties. The court emphasized that Penn Traffic's refusal to accept performance, invoking the Doctrine of Prevention of Performance, could not justify rejecting the contract as executory.

Bankruptcy LawExecutory ContractsSection 365(a)Contract RejectionSubstantial PerformancePrevention of Performance DoctrineDebtor-in-PossessionChapter 11Commercial Real EstateLand Swap
References
68
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07554 [132 AD3d 500]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2015

Bridge Street Contracting Inc. v. Everest National Insurance

This case addresses an insurer's disclaimer of coverage due to late notice of claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a lower court order, declaring that Everest National Insurance Company has no duty to defend or indemnify Bridge Street Contracting Inc. in the underlying action. The court ruled that Everest properly disclaimed coverage without needing to demonstrate prejudice, as it was not participating in the defense when Bridge Street was served with the claims. Arguments regarding waiver of the late notice defense and antisubrogation were rejected. CastlePoint Insurance Company's motion to intervene was also denied as academic.

Insurance CoverageLate NoticeDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyAntisubrogationInterventionAppellate DivisionContract Law
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,120 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