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

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Finchum v. Colaiacomo

The Workers’ Compensation Board issued an amended decision ruling against further development of the record on the employer’s liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 56, and later denied the employer's request for reconsideration. The claimant was involved in a serious automobile accident while driving for an uninsured employer, leading to complex proceedings where the employer sought to assign liability to a general contractor, Cleanway Industries, Inc., and its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company. The appellate court found that the Board abused its discretion by sua sponte rescinding its prior directive to further develop the record, particularly without a compelling reason or apparent regulatory authorization. The court noted that the issue of liability had been pending for years and there were potential reasonable excuses for the employer's absence at certain hearings. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' Compensation LawBoard DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionRecord DevelopmentWaiver DefenseUninsured EmployerGeneral Contractor LiabilityInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oneida Ltd. v. Utica Mutual Insurance

Oneida Ltd., a self-insured employer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against its insurers, Utica Mutual and Republic Western, to determine liability for a substantial claim arising from a workplace accident involving the Ketchum brothers. The core dispute centered on whether Republic Western's excess workers' compensation policy, designed for self-insureds, was legally mandated to provide unlimited employer's liability coverage, or if its stated $1,000,000 limit was valid. Oneida Ltd. argued for the validity of the limit, which would then obligate Utica Mutual's $10,000,000 umbrella policy for the excess. Utica Mutual contended that employer's liability coverage must be unlimited in New York and that its policy disclaimed such coverage. The court ultimately sided with Oneida Ltd. and Republic Western, ruling that excess reinsurance policies for self-insured employers are not required to provide unlimited employer's liability coverage, thus upholding Republic Western's $1,000,000 limit. The court also found that Utica Mutual's policy did not effectively disclaim coverage, making it liable for amounts exceeding Republic Western's limit.

Insurance Policy DisputeDeclaratory ReliefEmployer Liability InsuranceExcess CoverageUmbrella LiabilitySelf-Insurance RegulationsInsurance Contract InterpretationThird-Party IndemnificationRegulatory Agency InterpretationSummary Judgment Motion
References
12
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

Catania v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

This case involves a submitted controversy under sections 546 to 548 of the Civil Practice Act, concerning whether a liability policy issued to John Schiro extends coverage to the plaintiff for injuries sustained by Schiro's wife. Schiro's wife alleged negligence against her spouse in the operation of his vehicle during his employment with the plaintiff. The court analyzed Insurance Law section 167 (subd. 3), which states that policies do not cover liability for spousal injuries unless expressly provided. Citing Morgan v. Greater New York Taxpayers Mut. Ins. Assn., the court treated the policy as if issued to the plaintiff alone, determining that Schiro's wife is not the plaintiff's spouse, thus making section 167 (subd. 3) inapplicable. The decision, supported by Manhattan Cas. Co. v. Cholakis, concluded that the insurer is liable. Therefore, judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to defend the pending negligence action and pay any judgment up to the policy limits.

Liability PolicyInsurance CoverageSpousal LiabilityCivil Practice ActInsurance LawNegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentAutomobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityInterspousal Immunity
References
2
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. ADJ4629950
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

JOHNNY BETTENCOURT vs. DONALD WILLIAMS, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' BENEFIT TRUST FUND DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

The Uninsured Employers' Benefit Trust Fund (UEBTF) sought reconsideration, arguing Safeco's policy covered the applicant's injury. The Arbitrator previously ruled Safeco had no liability as its policy with Donald Williams did not include "comprehensive personal liability" insurance as required by Insurance Code section 11590. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding the Safeco policy explicitly limited coverage to premises liability and lacked the necessary language for comprehensive personal liability coverage. Therefore, Safeco was correctly found not liable for the applicant's injury.

Uninsured Employers' Benefit Trust Fundcomprehensive personal liability insuranceLabor Code section 3351(d)Labor Code section 3352(h)Insurance Code section 11590premises liability insuranceSafeco Insurance CompanyDonald WilliamsJohnny Bettencourtworker's compensation coverage
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 1981

Claim of Saracione v. Oliver Construction Co.

The case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's employment injury and insurance coverage. The Board's determination that the claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment, specifically during travel for which expenses were paid, was affirmed. However, the Board's finding of dual insurance coverage between American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. and Great American Insurance Co. was reversed. This reversal was based on the finding that American Mutual's failure to notify the employer of non-renewal did not result in a lapse of coverage, as the employer had already secured new coverage from Great American, thus negating the need to impose continued liability on American Mutual.

Travel ExpensesCourse of EmploymentDual Insurance CoverageInsurance Policy Non-renewalWorkers' Compensation Board AppealEmployer LiabilityInsurer LiabilityStatutory Notice RequirementCoverage LapseAppellate Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Insurance v. State

Thomas Murray, an executive officer and co-owner of T & T Murray Company, Inc., sustained severe injuries while working, having previously elected to be excluded from Workers’ Compensation coverage under Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (6). Following a successful lawsuit against the general contractor, Concept Construction Corp., and subsequent indemnification from T & T, Concept's liability carrier, Continental Insurance Company, sought coverage from T & T's insurer, State Insurance Fund. The State Fund denied the claim, asserting the exclusion applied to both Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability coverage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling that the two types of coverage are inextricably linked, and the election to exclude executive officers from Workers’ Compensation coverage also eliminates Employers’ Liability coverage for injuries to those officers.

Workers' Compensation Law § 54(6)Employers' Liability CoverageExecutive Officer ExclusionCorporate OfficersStock OwnershipInsurance Policy InterpretationThird-Party IndemnificationSubrogation ClaimStatutory InterpretationNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 13,127 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