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
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24048 [3 Misc 3d 347]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Johnson v. Hudson Riv. Constr. Co., Inc.

This case addresses motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Hudson River Construction Co., Inc., Albany Asphalt & Aggregates Corp., and Robert C. Higley. The plaintiff, Carlynann V. Johnson, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Warren D. Johnson, sought damages for the death of Warren D. Johnson, who was crushed by a truck at a construction site. Defendants argued that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 limited their liability to reckless conduct, eliminating a duty of care. The court denied the motions, holding that defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of duty to Johnson as an employee at a construction site and misapplied VTL § 1103, which does not apply to construction workers. The court also found that the defendants failed to establish that Johnson was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Summary Judgment MotionNegligence ActionConstruction Site FatalityWorkplace Safety DutyVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate Cause DisputeThird-Party LiabilityWrongful Death ClaimEmployer ResponsibilityHighway Construction Accident
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 1999

Rosen v. New York Zoological Society

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision. The case involved a plaintiff, a volunteer worker, who was injured while navigating a steep, muddy riverbank. The plaintiff argued that the injury resulted from a latent or concealed condition, breaching the defendant's duty. However, the appellate court found that such natural terrain with foreseeable uneven spots does not engender a duty on the part of the defendant. It held that a landowner owes no duty to warn of or prevent danger from plainly and obviously dangerous natural conditions, thereby granting the defendant's motion and dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLandowner DutyNatural ConditionsObvious DangerVolunteer InjuryRiverbank IncidentAppellate ReversalDismissal of ComplaintBronx County
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galasso v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained when a construction sign fell on her, allegedly due to a gust of wind caused by defendants' speeding tractor-trailer. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty and the injury was unforeseeable. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that defendants owed a duty of care to construction workers on or adjacent to the road, and the accident was a reasonably foreseeable hazard within the scope of that duty.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentDuty of CareForeseeabilityTractor-Trailer AccidentConstruction AccidentWind GustAppellate ReviewTort LawNegligence
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03497 [206 AD3d 620]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2022

Everett v. CMI Servs. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ron Everett, sustained personal injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated water and feces in an employee break room at his workplace. Defendants, including CMI Services Corp., Omni New York, LLC, and Plaza Residences, LLP, moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses such as inherent job hazard, open and obvious condition, and employer protection under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was not engaged in his cleaning duties at the time of the fall, the dangerous condition was not proven to be non-inherently dangerous despite being open and obvious (due to hidden feces), and the defendants failed to establish an alter ego or special employer relationship to invoke Workers' Compensation Law immunity. The court concluded that the defendants did not demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary Judgment MotionCommon-Law NegligenceOpen and Obvious ConditionInherent Job HazardWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Alter Ego DoctrineSpecial EmployerAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hinkle v. Delavan Industries, Inc.

Danny Ray Hinkle, an employee of Commercial Carriers, Inc. (CCI), was injured by a trailer manufactured by his employer and sought to recover in tort against CCI's corporate parents and siblings, including Ryder Services Corporation and Ryder System, Inc. Hinkle alleged that these defendants breached a duty to ensure the safe manufacturing of the trailer, despite his sole remedy against CCI being worker's compensation. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they had not undertaken an independent duty to prevent injuries to their subsidiary's employees. The court examined whether Ryder System, Inc. assumed such a duty through its Herron Task Force. Ultimately, the court found no evidence that Ryder System, Inc. undertook a duty to render services or increased the risk of harm, concluding that the task force's purpose was primarily profit-related and not intended to benefit the subsidiaries directly. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact existed for their liability.

Summary JudgmentCorporate LiabilityParent Company LiabilitySubsidiary EmployeesWorker's Compensation ExclusivityDesign DefectAssumption of DutyHerron Task ForceSafety ProtocolsTort Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aubry v. General Accident Insurance

Aubry Transportation, Inc. hired Wayne Felts to perform welding work, during which Donald Aubry's son lost consciousness due to poisonous fumes, and Aubry subsequently suffered a fatal heart attack. The administratrix of Aubry's estate sued Aubry Transportation, Inc. for negligence. General Accident Insurance, the corporation's insurer, disclaimed coverage and refused to defend, citing policy exclusions for employee injury in the course of employment and obligations under the Workers’ Compensation Law, along with a failure to give prompt notice. The plaintiff then initiated an action seeking a declaration that General Accident had a duty to defend. General Accident appealed from an order denying its motion for summary judgment, with a dissenting opinion arguing that summary judgment should have been granted due to the clear applicability of policy exclusions and the lack of coverage.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionsSummary Judgment AppealEmployer NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusionLate Notice ClaimDeclaratory Relief ActionWrongful DeathWelding Accident
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2003

Cabrera v. Picker International, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order dated May 13, 2003, which denied the defendant-appellant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant had sought dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by CPLR 214-c (2) due to the Statute of Limitations and that the defendant owed no duty of care. The court found that the plaintiff's early symptoms were too isolated to trigger the Statute of Limitations before September 1992. Furthermore, the court determined there was sufficient evidence to suggest the defendant may have assumed a duty of care, based on reports of chemical spills and fumes during its equipment servicing, and the plaintiff's continuous complaints regarding the chemical odors.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214-c (2)Duty of CareChemical ExposureChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseWorkers' Compensation ClaimDetrimental RelianceAssumed DutyToxic Tort
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2012

310 East 74 LLC v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

The Supreme Court affirmed an order granting the defendant insurer's motion for summary judgment, thereby relieving the insurer of the duty to defend or indemnify plaintiffs in an underlying personal injury action. The court determined that plaintiffs' seven-month delay in notifying the insurer of the accident was unreasonable and that they failed to establish a good-faith belief in nonliability. Key evidence included the building superintendent's knowledge of the worker's fall and apparent injury, which was imputed to the plaintiffs and necessitated a more thorough inquiry. Additionally, the accident involved a construction worker on plaintiffs' property, indicating potential Labor Law liability, and the appearance of an investigator further put plaintiffs on notice. Finally, the court noted that the insurer was not obligated to demonstrate prejudice from the untimely notice, as the policy predated the relevant amendments to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (5).

Insurance LawDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentUntimely NoticeGood Faith BeliefNon-liabilityPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law Liability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 19,757 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