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

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

Claim of Cerbasi v. County Metal & Glass, Inc.

A claimant injured their left arm while working at a New York construction site for a New Jersey employer insured by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJMIC). A dispute arose regarding coverage, with the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board determining the policy covered the accident because New York was not an explicitly excluded state and NJMIC’s attempt to amend the policy was ineffective. NJMIC appealed, arguing the Board erred in its coverage finding and that Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (5) notice requirements did not apply to partial cancellations. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the Board's determination on coverage implicit and that NJMIC failed to demonstrate an effective exclusion or proper cancellation under Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). The court also noted NJMIC's argument regarding partial cancellation was unpreserved.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoveragePolicy ExclusionNew York LawNew Jersey BusinessStatutory ComplianceCancellation NoticeAppellate ReviewJurisdictionLeft Arm Injury
References
9
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

Admiral Insurance v. Joy Contractors, Inc.

This case addresses an insurance coverage dispute arising from a tower crane collapse during construction. Plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company, an excess insurer, denied coverage to defendant Joy Contractors, Inc., the crane operator, and several additional insureds, citing a 'residential construction activities' exclusion and Joy’s alleged misrepresentations in its underwriting application. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division had issued differing rulings on these key issues, particularly concerning the applicability of the exclusion and whether alleged misrepresentations by a named insured could affect additional insureds' coverage. The Court of Appeals found the Appellate Division erred in its assessment of evidence regarding the residential construction exclusion and in its application of precedent concerning additional insureds. Consequently, the higher court reinstated Admiral's claims for rescission, reformation, and declarations related to Joy's misrepresentations against all defendants, while affirming the ambiguity of an LLC exclusion.

Insurance CoverageCrane CollapseExcess PolicyCGL PolicyResidential Construction ExclusionMaterial MisrepresentationAdditional InsuredsRescissionReformationAppellate Review
References
8
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

Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Global Enercom Management, Inc.

This case addresses an insurance dispute between Global Enercom Management, Inc. and Mid-Continent Casualty Company concerning coverage for workers who died after a fall from a cell tower. The accident involved a rope-and-pulley system powered by a pickup truck. The court analyzed two insurance policy exclusions: an 'auto-use' exclusion and a 'subsequent-to-execution' clause. The Texas Supreme Court held that the 'auto-use' exclusion in the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy precluded coverage, reversing the appellate court's decision on this point. However, the court affirmed that the 'subsequent-to-execution' clause in both the CGL and Commercial Auto Policy (CAP) did not bar coverage, as the subcontract was considered 'executed' prior to the incident, despite Global's delayed signature.

Insurance CoverageAuto Use ExclusionSubsequent-to-Execution ClauseSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationCommercial General Liability PolicyCommercial Auto PolicyWorkers' CompensationCell Tower AccidentDeclaratory Judgment
References
22
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

Celestino v. Mid-American Indemnity Insurance Co.

The case involves an appeal by the family members of Arturo Celestino, deceased, and Sebastian Cotton & Grain (collectively, the Celestinos) against Mid-American Indemnity Insurance (Mid-American) regarding a summary judgment. The Celestinos alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligence, and violations of the Insurance Code and DTPA, claiming Mid-American's umbrella policy, intended for employer's liability, provided no actual coverage due to extensive exclusions. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment concerning fraud, negligence, and DTPA § 17.46 violations, reasoning that the policy's plain language, including clear warnings and exclusions, negated claims of misrepresentation and duty to disclose. However, the court reversed and remanded the claims for breach of contract and unconscionability under DTPA § 17.50(a)(3), finding Mid-American failed to demonstrate the policy offered any employer's liability coverage under Texas law and noting potential repugnancy between the general coverage provision and its exclusions.

Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance Code ViolationsUnconscionabilityEmployer's Liability InsurancePolicy ExclusionsFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligence Claim
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Boswell

Grange Mutual Casualty Company initiated a declaratory judgment action in Overton County, Tennessee, seeking clarification on insurance coverage under a policy issued to Ross Cantrell for a 1969 Ford Van. The dispute arose after an accident on November 13, 1969, involving Pearl Cantrell, her co-worker Mary Lou Boswell, and an uninsured motorist, James Crabtree, while Pearl Cantrell was transporting co-workers for a daily contribution. The insurance company denied claims under the uninsured motorist section, arguing the vehicle was used for a "business or commercial purpose," which was an exclusion under Part I (Liability) of the policy. The Chancery Court initially found coverage for Ross and Pearl Cantrell, leading the insurance company to appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Chancellor's decision, concluding that while the vehicle's use fell under the "business or commercial purpose" exclusion for general liability (Part I), it was nonetheless covered under the specific provisions for "Uninsured Motorists" (Part IV), which lacked such a commercial use exclusion for that particular coverage.

insurance coverageuninsured motoristdeclaratory judgmentbusiness use exclusioncommercial purposepolicy interpretationvehicle usepassenger transportappellate reviewTennessee law
References
0
Case No. NO. 07-08-0253-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2009

Republic-Vanguard Insurance Company v. Charlie Mize D/B/A Quality Framing and Doug Settler

This case addresses an insurance law coverage dispute concerning the interpretation of the phrase 'and/or' within a workers' compensation exclusion in a commercial general liability policy. Republic-Vanguard Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment that found it had a duty to defend Charlie Mize d/b/a Quality Framing and Doug Settler. Republic argued the exclusion precluded coverage for subcontractors. However, Mize and Settler contended the exclusion only applied to employees of the insured and employees of any subcontractor, not to subcontractors themselves. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the exclusion was unambiguous and applied only to employees, thereby obligating Republic to provide a defense to Mize.

Insurance CoverageContract InterpretationWorkers' Compensation ExclusionDuty to DefendSummary Judgment AppealCommercial General Liability PolicySubcontractor LiabilityPolicy AmbiguityTexas Appellate LawEmployment Injury Claim
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 3,067 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