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. ADJ581749 (VNO 0529719)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

ARLENE HITE vs. TEPCO (STANDARD ABRASIVES, INC.), EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Clarendon National Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's contribution award. Clarendon argued it should not be liable for contribution because it was joined as a defendant over a year after the underlying cumulative trauma claim was settled. The Board denied reconsideration, finding that Clarendon received timely actual notice of Everest's contribution claim within one year of the settlement approval. Therefore, despite the delay in formal joinder, Clarendon cannot show prejudice and is liable for its share of the contribution award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ContributionLabor Code section 5500.5Cumulative traumaCompromise and releaseOrder of JoinderNunc pro tuncActual noticeTimely noticePrejudice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2009

Admiral Insurance v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance

This case is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a dispute over insurance coverage and equitable contribution. Plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company sought reimbursement from defendants Scottsdale Insurance Company and American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company (AEI) for its share of a $2.3 million settlement in an underlying personal injury action. The underlying action involved an employee of B&R Rebar Consultants, Inc. (B&R) who was injured on a construction site, leading to a verdict against Cross Country Contracting, LLC (Cross Country), an additional insured under B&R's policies. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's decision, denying the defendants' motions and cross-motions. It granted Admiral summary judgment, ruling that Cross Country was entitled to coverage as an additional insured under policies issued by AEI and Scottsdale to B&R. Consequently, Admiral was awarded reimbursement of $566,667 from AEI and $150,000 from Scottsdale, plus interest, with costs to Admiral.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentEquitable ContributionExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceArising Out Of ClauseConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coyle v. Intermagnetics Corp.

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that an unnamed claimant, who suffered work-related back injuries in 1985 and 1989, was entitled to reduced earnings benefits after taking a lower-paying job. The employer, Intermagnetics Corporation, and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier appealed, arguing the reduction in earnings was due to personal reasons, not disability. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's permanent partial disability was a contributing factor to the wage reduction, despite conflicting evidence. The ruling highlighted that physical limitations from a permanent partial disability allow for an inference of causation for subsequent wage loss.

Permanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsBack InjuryChiropractic TreatmentCausal RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWage LossEmployment ChangeMedical Testimony
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sciascia v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

The Trustees of the Special and Superior Officers Benevolent Association Defined Contribution Fund (Plaintiffs) sued Rochdale Village, Inc. (Defendant) for allegedly failing to make required contributions to the fund. The Plaintiffs' claims were brought under Section 301 of the LMRA and Sections 515 and 502(a)(3) of ERISA. The Defendant argued that its obligation was contingent on an unsatisfied condition precedent and that the contributions would be illegal under LMRA Section 302. The Court found the Memorandum of Agreement created an unambiguous obligation for the Defendant to contribute, and the SSOBA Fund did not violate LMRA Section 302. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the Defendant's motion.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDefined Contribution PlanPension FundSummary JudgmentCondition PrecedentMultiemployer PlanTrust FundEmployer Contributions
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1992

Baca v. HRH Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dismissing a third-party plaintiff's claim for contribution. The court determined that a pre-verdict "high-low" agreement between the plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff general contractor constituted a release under General Obligations Law § 15-108, thereby barring the contribution claim against the third-party defendant. It was also noted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal the dismissal of the third-party claim. Furthermore, the court found that the third-party plaintiff's purported assignment of its contribution claim to the plaintiff was void, as no claim to assign existed given that its liability was limited to less than its equitable share by the settlement. The court also questioned whether such an assignment could circumvent the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions.

High-low agreementContribution claimGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108ReleaseCPLR 5511Standing to appealWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivityEquitable shareAssignment of claimThird-party practice
References
7
Case No. AHM 106897 AHM 106895 AHM 108789
Regular
Feb 05, 2008

VERONICA ORTIZ vs. DOWNEY AREA RECYCLING TRANSFER, CIGA by INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, in liquidation, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns State Compensation Insurance Fund's (SCIF) challenge to an arbitrator's decision granting contribution rights to CIGA. The arbitrator awarded CIGA $43,418.27 in contribution, which SCIF disputes based on incorrect facts and law. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the arbitrator's decision, remanding the matter for findings on injury and common body parts to determine contribution entitlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASCIFContributionReconsiderationArbitrator's FindingsCompromise and ReleaseThomas findingAOE/COEPost-termination defense
References
2
Case No. LAO 0860371, LAO 0831137, LAO 0834273
Regular
Jul 11, 2008

CESAR MAGANA vs. NORCO INDUSTRIES, INC., ACCA for EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Everest National Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision denying its claim for contribution from State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). The arbitrator found Everest was not entitled to contribution for temporary disability or vocational rehabilitation benefits. The appeals board affirmed the arbitrator's award, determining that Everest failed to establish that SCIF was liable for a cumulative trauma injury, which is a prerequisite for contribution under Labor Code section 5500.5.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardcontributiontemporary disability indemnityself-procured medical treatmentvocational rehabilitation benefitsQualified Injured Worker (QIW)cumulative trauma injuryspecific injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing its complaint for contribution and indemnification against the defendant. The defendant had employed two undocumented aliens who were injured on the plaintiff's property and received workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should negate the protections of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which typically bars third-party claims against employers unless specific exceptions apply. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the IRCA does not preempt Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and a violation of IRCA does not abrogate an employer's immunity from third-party claims for contribution and indemnification.

ContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)CPLR 3211 (a) (7)PreemptionUndocumented AliensEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ClaimsStatutory Interpretation
References
33
Case No. 05-01158
Regular Panel Decision

In Re ACE Elevator Co., Inc.

The Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Benefit Plans sought administrative priority for delinquent contributions from A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc. (ACE), based on various sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The court denied administrative priority for most claims, including those under 11 U.S.C. §§ 503(b)(1)(A), 507(a)(1), and 1113(f), reasoning that the contributions were for prepetition work and that section 1113(f) does not create super-priority. However, the motion was partially granted under 11 U.S.C. § 1114(e) for Welfare Plan contributions, recognizing them as retiree benefits despite their prepetition nature, but requiring further information on the exact allocation to retirees. Claims for interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees were denied priority, as was ACE's request for costs. This decision underscores the careful interpretation of priority schemes within bankruptcy law.

Bankruptcy LawAdministrative PriorityEmployee BenefitsPension PlansWelfare PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementsDebtor-in-PossessionRetiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection ActPrepetition ClaimsPostpetition Claims
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies

This declaratory judgment action addresses the hierarchy of excess insurance policies in a situation where one policy is primary for owned vehicles but excess for non-owned, and the second is an umbrella policy covering multiple risks. The case stems from an accident involving a rented van, which led to a $650,000 settlement. After the primary insurer paid $500,000, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies and Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Co. each contributed $75,000, pending a determination of their respective excess coverage obligations. The Supreme Court initially ruled for ratable contribution. However, citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v LiMauro, the appellate court reversed, holding that Northbrook's umbrella policy constitutes a final tier of coverage, not required to contribute ratably with Chubb's excess policy. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to Northbrook, entitling it to a $75,000 reimbursement from Chubb.

Excess InsuranceUmbrella InsuranceDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance Policy InterpretationInsurance Coverage DisputeAutomobile Liability InsuranceNon-Owned VehicleRatable ContributionFinal Tier CoverageSummary Judgment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,956 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