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
Aug 05, 2002

A.J. McNulty & Co. v. Lloyds of London

Plaintiff construction project subcontractors, holding general liability insurance from Lloyds of London and workers' compensation policies from AIG, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Lloyds. This action sought to compel Lloyds to defend and indemnify them in third-party lawsuits arising from worker injuries and deaths on a construction project, where AIG had already defended the plaintiffs in their capacity as third-party defendants. The Supreme Court granted Lloyds' cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that an employers' liability exclusion in the Lloyds policy validly precluded coverage for employee bodily injury or death related to employment. Furthermore, the court found that Lloyds' disclaimer of coverage was timely, as the insurer's obligation to disclaim arose only when it was served with the declaratory judgment action papers in September 2001, and it disclaimed shortly thereafter. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this decision, rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments.

Insurance LawEmployers' Liability ExclusionDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentDisclaimer of CoverageTimeliness of DisclaimerThird-Party ActionsGeneral Liability PolicyWorkers' Compensation PolicySubcontractors
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLaughlin v. Midrox Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiffs sought to compel Midrox Insurance Company to indemnify the Blodgett Brothers Partnerships for a $1 million judgment in an underlying personal injury action. The accident involved a motorcycle operated by plaintiff Charles R. McLaughlin and a pickup truck driven by Ronald Blodgett. Midrox had disclaimed coverage, arguing the accident occurred off insured premises and involved a registered vehicle. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the farmowner's policy did provide coverage. The court determined that public roadways used for transporting materials between farm parcels could be considered 'insured premises' and that the pickup truck's agricultural registration did not negate coverage given its exclusive use for farming purposes.

Personal InjuryFarmowner's InsuranceInsurance CoverageAgricultural TruckPolicy InterpretationOff-Premises AccidentPublic RoadwaysSummary JudgmentIndemnificationVehicle and Traffic Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U. P. Iron Works v. Investors Insurance

Plaintiff insured brought a declaratory judgment action against their insurer, who issued both workers' compensation and general liability policies. The dispute arose after a partner was injured, leading to a third-party products liability action against the partnership. The insurer disclaimed coverage, citing lack of coverage for a direct suit by a partner and late notice of the accident. The court found that coverage existed for the third-party claim, extending it to a partner similar to an employee. Furthermore, the court determined that the notice provided by the insured, though three years after the accident, was not unreasonably late given the complexities involved. Consequently, the court declared the policy to be in full force and effect for the accident.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance CoverageWorkers' Compensation PolicyGeneral Liability PolicyThird-Party ClaimPartner InjuryEmployee ExclusionLate Notice DisclaimerDuty to DefendSummary Judgment Motion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 1996

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

Eldee Mike, an employee of Vanderbilt Biltmore Corp., was injured at a construction project owned and managed by Harry Macklowe, Harry Macklowe Real Estate Co., Inc., and McGraw Hudson Construction Corp. Vanderbilt, a subcontractor, was contractually obligated to indemnify Macklowe and name them as additional insureds on its liability policy with National Union. Mike subsequently sued Macklowe, who then brought a third-party action against Vanderbilt. National Union disclaimed coverage due to Vanderbilt's late notice, as Vanderbilt had been dissolved. Macklowe's insurer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, defended Macklowe and paid the judgment and legal fees, then sued National Union for reimbursement. The IAS Court initially denied Aetna's summary judgment motion and granted National Union's cross-motion, finding Aetna's notice untimely. The appellate court reversed, holding that Aetna, as Macklowe's subrogee, provided timely notice and that National Union's disclaimer, based solely on Vanderbilt's late notice, was ineffective against Aetna/Macklowe because their late notice was not asserted as a ground for disclaimer.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendContractual IndemnificationAdditional InsuredsLate Notice DisclaimerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalSubrogation ClaimConstruction LiabilityDissolved Corporation
References
6
Case No. 03 Civ. 0332(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

In Re September 11th Liability Insurance Coverage Cases

This opinion and order addresses two Rule 12(c) motions regarding insurance coverage for the World Trade Center properties following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sought a declaration that it is an "Additional Insured" under Zurich American Insurance Company's policies, while World Trade Center Properties LLC (WTCP) sought a declaration that Zurich is obligated to cover defense costs. The court, presided over by District Judge Hellerstein, denied both motions. It found ambiguity in the binder regarding the Port Authority's "Additional Insured" status, stating that the issue was premature without further discovery. Furthermore, the court held that New York Insurance Regulation 107 does not require rewriting Zurich's binder and policies to include defense costs, considering the unique circumstances, the sophistication of the insured, and the fact that Zurich explicitly excluded defense costs, which Silverstein (WTCP's affiliate) accepted after failing to secure conventional coverage. The court also affirmed supplemental jurisdiction over the insurance claims due to their close relation to the underlying September 11th liability cases.

Insurance CoverageSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterRule 12(c) MotionDeclaratory ReliefAdditional Insured StatusDefense CostsInsurance BinderNew York Insurance LawRegulation 107
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2001

Generali-U.S. Branch v. Rothschild

This case concerns an insurance dispute between Generali, an insurer, and the Rothschild defendants, insureds, regarding commercial general liability coverage. The Rothschilds were notified in 1992 by tenants, the Eromosele family, and a social worker about lead poisoning in their children from peeling paint. In 1997, the Eromoseles sued the Rothschilds for negligence. Generali, notified in 1998, subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action to avoid defending or indemnifying the Rothschilds. The Supreme Court initially granted Generali's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court found Generali's two-month delay in disclaiming coverage reasonable as a matter of law. However, the court identified a factual issue regarding whether the Rothschilds were obligated to notify Generali in 1992, given Generali was not then their insurer and the Rothschilds' potential good faith belief of nonliability. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order, denying Generali's motion for summary judgment.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of LiabilitySummary JudgmentNegligence ActionLead Paint PoisoningGood Faith BeliefQuestion of FactAppellate ReviewProperty InsuranceTenant Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. State Insurance Fund

National Union Fire Insurance Company (National Union) initiated a declaratory judgment action against the State Insurance Fund (SIF) seeking reimbursement for funds spent to settle an underlying personal injury lawsuit, Daza v City of New York. National Union had issued general liability policies to EMD Construction Corp. (EMD), which also covered the City of New York as an additional insured. SIF, in turn, insured EMD for workers' compensation and employers' liability. The Daza action, involving an injured EMD employee, was settled for $175,000, with a stipulation that EMD was 99% actively negligent and the City 1%. National Union disclaimed coverage for the City due to untimely notice and paid the settlement on behalf of EMD. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to National Union, finding SIF obligated to repay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that National Union's disclaimer was valid, the antisubrogation rule was not violated, and the indemnification agreement between EMD and the City was unenforceable due to the City's active negligence, thus shifting the obligation to SIF for common-law indemnification.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentIndemnificationSubrogationUntimely NoticeActive NegligenceContractual LiabilityWorkers' CompensationEmployer's LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Kolodny

Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine if it was obligated to indemnify Chaim S. Kolodny or provide coverage for claims stemming from a fatal 1990 automobile accident. GEICO argued a policy exclusion applied because the vehicle was for Kolodny's regular use. The Supreme Court initially granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that GEICO's disclaimer, issued over a year after receiving notice of the accident, was untimely and lacked an adequate explanation for the delay. Consequently, GEICO was found to be obligated to provide coverage. The appeal from the intermediate order was dismissed.

Insurance CoverageAutomobile AccidentDeclaratory JudgmentTimely DisclaimerPolicy ExclusionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEstate AdministrationIndemnificationRegular Use Clause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Admiral Insurance v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

The case involves an insurance dispute between Admiral Insurance Company and P&K (plaintiffs) and State Farm (defendant) concerning coverage for an underlying personal injury lawsuit. P&K, a contractor, was supposed to be covered as an additional insured under a State Farm policy through its subcontractor, Shahid Enterprises. After a Shahid employee was injured, triggering a lawsuit against P&K, Admiral sought defense and indemnification from State Farm, which disclaimed coverage due to late notice. The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding that Insurance Law § 3420 (d) applied but a factual dispute existed regarding the timeliness of State Farm's disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that triable issues of fact remained as to whether Admiral's failure to provide information contributed to State Farm's delay in disclaiming coverage.

Insurance disputeDisclaimer of coverageLate noticeAdditional insuredSummary judgmentTriable issues of factInsurance Law § 3420 (d)Co-primary insurerIndemnificationDeclaratory judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Gray

Plaintiff Lloyds of London issued a commercial liability policy to Cathy Gray, which contained an exclusion for injuries sustained by employees of independent contractors. When an employee of a subcontractor, Elizardo Valdez, was injured on Gray's property and filed a Labor Law action, Lloyds of London initiated a process to disclaim coverage. The insurer received the complaint on May 16, 2005, and issued its disclaimer on July 11, 2005, a total of 56 days later. The court reviewed whether this delay in disclaiming coverage was reasonable, highlighting unresolved factual issues regarding when the insurer should have known the grounds for disclaimer and the diligence of its investigation. The decision affirmed the denial of Lloyds of London's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the timeliness of the disclaimer had not been established as a matter of law.

Insurance LawDisclaimer of CoverageTimelinessSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommercial Liability PolicyIndependent Contractor ExclusionDuty to InvestigateNotice of ClaimFactual Dispute
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,293 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