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
Jun 30, 2000

Podbielski v. KMO-361 Realty Associates

The case involves an appeal from a judgment following a personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiffs' decedent, a construction worker, died after falling from an unguarded scaffold. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the KMO defendants (property owner and construction manager), and also granted the KMO defendants' cross-motion for contractual indemnification against the third-party defendants (decedent's employers). The judgment, which incorporated a jury verdict on damages, was appealed by both the KMO defendants and the third-party defendants. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the lack of safety devices was a proximate cause of the death, and rejecting the intoxication and recalcitrant worker defenses.

Personal injurywrongful deathconstruction accidentscaffold accidentscaffold fallLabor Law § 240 (1)summary judgmentliabilitycontractual indemnificationproximate cause
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2012

Grant v. City of New York

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning a personal injury action. The plaintiff was injured after falling from a ladder while performing electrical work and asserted claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6), and common-law negligence against the City of New York. The City, in turn, filed a third-party action for contractual indemnification against the plaintiff's employer, A & S Electric, Inc. The appellate court modified the original order by granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and granting the City's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Additionally, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the City on its contractual indemnification claim against A & S Electric, Inc.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction AccidentLadder SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnificationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionNegligence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2005

Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund v. Blakel Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying renewal of a prior summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the renewal. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, ruling that the denial of a summary judgment motion does not constitute collateral estoppel as it is not an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the court granted renewal and, upon renewal, awarded summary judgment to Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. and Inner City Drywall. Additionally, F & S Real Estate Development Corp. was awarded summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. The court found the indemnification provisions enforceable due to the lack of evidence of active negligence by the plaintiffs and insufficient evidence from defendants regarding supervision or control over the injury-producing work. However, the motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning liability.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction ContractsActive NegligenceRight to Stop WorkAppellate DivisionBronx CountyWorker's Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mantovani v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant ADCO Electrical Corp. appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. Concurrently, the defendant third-party plaintiff Herbert G. Martin, Inc., cross-appeals from the same order, which denied its cross-motion for summary judgment on that cause of action. The underlying personal injury action involved an unnamed plaintiff, an employee of ADCO, who was injured while working as a subcontractor for Martin. The Workers' Compensation Law generally precludes indemnification claims against employers, with an exception for express contractual agreements. The court found sufficient evidence of a written contract in the form of a certificate of liability insurance between ADCO and Martin to deny both motions for summary judgment, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the indemnification obligation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionAppealCross-AppealEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor AgreementPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate Affirmation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Corp.

Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company (National) sought a declaratory judgment against defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Corporation (Aetna), asserting Aetna was a co-insurer for defense and indemnity obligations owed to an insured. The dispute arose from an underlying personal injury action where an employee of Karl Wrecking Company sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), for whom Karl provided wrecking services. National insured MTA under an owner's liability policy and Karl under a general liability policy, while Aetna provided Karl's workers' compensation policy, excluding contractual liability. The court found that National, controlling MTA's defense, strategically omitted a contractual indemnification claim against Karl, instead pursuing common law indemnification, to trigger Aetna's liability. The court denied National's request, ruling that National had manipulated the litigation for its own benefit, thereby placing its interests above those of its insureds and violating public policy against insurers subrogating against their own insureds.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance DisputeCo-InsuranceIndemnificationCommon Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationInsurer DutiesConflict of InterestSubrogationBad Faith
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02452 [160 AD3d 711]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2018

Marulanda v. Vance Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Jose Marulanda, a construction worker, was injured after falling from a scaffold lacking safety rails. He sued Vance Associates, LLC, the building owner, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Vance Associates, LLC, in turn, filed a third-party action against the general contractor, U.S. Team, Inc., for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court initially denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and the defendant's motion for contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and the defendant's motion for contractual indemnification against the general contractor.

Scaffold AccidentConstruction Worker InjuryLabor Law 240(1) ViolationSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationAppellate Division Second DepartmentPersonal InjurySafety DevicesPremises LiabilityGeneral Contractor Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hawthorne v. South Bronx Community Corp.

The case involves an appeal concerning a dispute between two insurers, State Insurance Fund and Zurich-American Insurance Companies, both of whom insured a subcontractor, Bri-Den Construction Co., Inc. The subcontractor was held liable to indemnify an owner and a general contractor for injuries sustained by an employee. State Fund provided coverage for common-law indemnity, while Zurich-American covered contractual indemnity. The central issue was whether a contractual duty to indemnify supersedes a common-law duty, thereby relieving the common-law insurer of its policy obligations. The Appellate Division found that contractual and common-law indemnity liabilities can coexist, meaning an insured with obligations on both grounds is entitled to coverage from both insurers. The court affirmed this decision, ruling that the mere existence of an indemnity provision does not replace common-law liability and both insurers are equally responsible for the loss.

Insurer disputeContractual indemnityCommon-law indemnitySubcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityWorkers' compensationEmployer's liabilityInsurance coverage interpretationCoexisting liabilities
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1998

Correia v. Professional Data Management, Inc.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by Creative Finishes, Ltd., fell 16 feet from an elevated platform while working at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan, sustaining multiple fractures. He initiated an action against the building owner (Professional Data Management, Inc.), construction manager (Gotham Construction Corp.), and building manager (Williamson, Picket & Gross, Inc.), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Gotham subsequently impleaded Creative Finishes, Ltd. for contractual and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied Gotham's cross-motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no evidence to support a recalcitrant worker defense and noting that factual questions regarding Gotham's own negligence, distinct from its statutory liability, precluded summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim.

Labor LawScaffoldingAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseGeneral Obligations LawConstruction AccidentPainter Fall
References
9
Case No. No. 14-07-01006-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2009

MID-CONTINENT CAS. v. Global Enercom Mgmt.

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute between Mid-Continent Casualty Company (appellant insurer) and Global Enercom Management, Inc. (appellee insured). The dispute arose from a fatal accident involving subcontractor Allstates Construction Company employees on a cellular tower repair project in Arkansas, where a pulley system powered by a pick-up truck failed, causing three workers to fall to their deaths. Mid-Continent denied Global Enercom's request for defense and indemnity under Allstates' commercial general liability (CGL) and commercial auto policies, citing an auto exclusion and a contractual liability exclusion. The trial court granted Global Enercom's declaratory judgment motion, finding coverage. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the auto exclusion did not apply because the pick-up truck did not itself produce the injury (the defective rope did), and the contractual liability exclusion did not apply as the subcontract was deemed executed under Texas law prior to the accident, despite a delay in Global Enercom's signature.

Insurance Coverage DisputeCommercial General Liability PolicyCommercial Automobile PolicyAuto ExclusionContractual Liability ExclusionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionAppellate ReviewCausation in InsuranceInterpretation of Insurance Policies
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 5,975 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