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. 2020 NY Slip Op 07851
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2020

Bodlovic v. Giannoutsos

Miodrag Bodlovic, a plaintiff, sustained personal injuries while working for Gigi Salon & Spa due to a malfunctioning rollup gate. He and his wife sued the premises owners, Frank Giannoutsos, Paraskevi Giannoutsos, and Vasiliki Giannoutsos, alleging negligence. The Giannoutsos defendants, named as additional insureds on Gigi Salon's commercial general liability policy with United States Liability Insurance Company (USLIC), sought a declaration that USLIC was obligated to defend and indemnify them. USLIC moved for summary judgment, arguing a bodily injury exclusion in its policy precluded coverage. However, the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied this motion, finding an exception to the exclusion for liability assumed under an 'insured contract,' which in this case was the lease agreement between Gigi Salon and the Giannoutsos defendants. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that USLIC failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the defendants were not entitled to coverage.

Insurance policyAdditional insuredSummary judgmentBodily injury exclusionInsured contractLease agreementIndemnificationAppellate reviewCoverage disputePremises liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2011

Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions, Inc. v. Essex Insurance

Plaintiff Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions commenced a declaratory judgment action against Defendant Essex Insurance Company, seeking an order to defend and indemnify Avrio in a personal injury action. Essex filed a motion to dismiss, which was converted to a motion for summary judgment. The court addressed two main exclusions: the Completed Operations Exclusion and the Contractual Liability Exclusion. The court found a potentiality of coverage under the Completed Operations Exclusion due to ambiguities in the term "intended use" and unresolved factual issues regarding the completion of work, denying summary judgment on this ground. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Essex regarding the Contractual Liability Exclusion, as the subcontract did not qualify as an "insured contract" under the policy's specific definition in effect at the time of the incident, and Avrio was presumed to have agreed to these terms. The case will proceed to an evidentiary hearing on the Completed Operations Exclusion.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContractual Liability ExclusionCompleted Operations ExclusionInsurance Policy InterpretationChoice of LawMaryland Contract LawFederal Civil ProcedureDuty to Defend
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 1995

Granieri v. 500 Fifth Avenue Associates

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). The court denied defendant 500 Fifth Avenue Associates' cross-motion to amend their answer to include Workers' Compensation as an exclusive remedy and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The denial was based on evidence that control and supervision over the plaintiff was exercised by Newmark Real Estate, Inc., the defendant's managing agent, refuting the claim that the plaintiff was a special employee of the defendant. The court also affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on the owner for injuries due to a failure to provide proper equipment, and the plaintiff's possible culpable conduct regarding ladder placement would not defeat the claim. Additionally, the court found no error in refusing to reinstate the third affirmative defense given the two-year delay in serving the verification of the bill of particulars.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilitySpecial EmployeePremises LiabilityAffirmative DefenseCulpable ConductLadder AccidentAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pesta v. City of Johnstown

This appeal concerns the applicability of the antisubrogation rule. Plaintiff, an employee of Peter Luizzi & Brothers Contracting (Luizzi), suffered severe injuries in a construction accident involving a Luizzi dump truck. Plaintiff sued defendant, who then filed a third-party action against Luizzi for common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court initially ruled defendant was entitled to indemnification for damages exceeding Luizzi's existing insurance policies. Upon reargument, the court granted defendant's motion in full, concluding the antisubrogation rule did not apply because Luizzi's commercial general liability, commercial automobile, and commercial liability umbrella policies had applicable exclusions, and the owners and contractors protective liability (OCP) policy named only the defendant as an insured. Luizzi appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the dump truck was an 'auto' under the CGL policy's exclusion, the co-employee exclusion in the automobile policy was valid, thus the umbrella policy was not implicated, and the antisubrogation rule was inapplicable to the OCP policy as it only insured the defendant.

AntisubrogationInsurance ExclusionIndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationCommercial General LiabilityCommercial Automobile PolicyUmbrella PolicyOCP PolicyAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff Michael Williams, a temporary laborer, was injured after falling from a ladder while working for Air Structures American Technologies, Inc. (ASAT) at a General Electric Company (GE) construction site. He and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. ASAT moved for summary judgment based on the special employee defense under Workers’ Compensation Law, and GE cross-moved for dismissal of a Labor Law claim. Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability against GE under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted ASAT’s motion to amend its answer and the plaintiffs’ cross motion against GE. On appeal, the court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs against GE on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding sufficient evidence of the ladder's failure. However, the appellate court reversed the denial of ASAT’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the plaintiff was a special employee of ASAT, thereby making workers’ compensation his exclusive remedy against ASAT. Consequently, the complaint against ASAT was dismissed.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentConstruction Site SafetySpecial Employment DoctrineTemporary StaffingAppellate ReviewContractor Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Graphic Arts Mutual, an automobile liability insurer, and Bakers Mutual, a workers' compensation carrier, over which policy covers an employer's derivative liability in a third-party personal injury action. An employee of Chimes Cake Co. was injured by a co-employee's negligence, leading to a third-party claim against the employer under the Dole-Dow doctrine. Graphic disclaimed responsibility, citing policy exclusions for employee bodily injury and workers' compensation obligations. The court affirmed that Graphic's automobile policy covered the employer's vicarious liability to a third-party tort-feasor, as this obligation did not fall within the stated exclusions. The decision emphasizes a functional analysis of separate insurance lines, concluding that automobile liability should cover obligations arising from vehicle operation.

Insurance disputeAutomobile liabilityWorkers' compensationThird-party actionDeclaratory judgmentEmployer's liabilityVicarious liabilityDole-Dow doctrinePolicy exclusionsCo-employee negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heritage v. Van Patten

The case addresses whether Labor Law section 241 can impose liability on a landowner who is also a coemployee. The court determined that such an imposition of liability would contradict subdivision 6 of section 29 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, which establishes workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy for injuries caused by a coemployee's negligence. It was emphasized that regardless of his status as the property owner, Van Patten remained a coemployee in all employment-related matters with the plaintiff. The decision draws parallels to Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388, asserting that statutes creating derivative liability do not negate the coemployee exclusivity defense, thereby barring a derivative action dependent on coemployee negligence.

Coemployee ImmunityLabor LawPremises LiabilityExclusive RemedyStatutory InterpretationDerivative LiabilityVehicle and Traffic LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Triboro Coach Corp. v. State

This case addresses an appeal concerning whether a "Workmen’s Compensation and Employers’ Liability Policy" covers an employer's payment of first-party benefits to an injured employee. The claimant, Triboro Coach Corp., sought indemnification from the defendant, State Insurance Fund, after paying such benefits to an employee involved in a motor vehicle accident during employment. The Court of Claims initially granted summary judgment to the claimant. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that an exclusion in the insurance policy limited coverage to liabilities founded in negligence. As first-party benefits are payable irrespective of fault, the employer's liability for these benefits fell squarely within the exclusion, leading to the dismissal of the indemnification claim.

Workers' Compensation PolicyEmployer's LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault InsuranceIndemnificationInsurance Policy InterpretationExclusion ClauseNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sabre v. Rutland Plywood Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Special Term order in Albany County regarding a fourth-party action. The action involved Tupper Lake Veneer Corp., an employer, and its general liability carrier, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G), concerning insurance coverage. USF&G had disclaimed liability for a third-party action against Tupper Lake, citing policy exclusions and untimely notice. Special Term granted summary judgment to Tupper Lake, ordering USF&G to provide coverage and defend. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that USF&G's reliance on policy exclusions was erroneous and Tupper Lake's notice was timely, given the circumstances and recent legal precedents regarding workers' compensation exclusivity.

Summary JudgmentFourth-Party ActionInsurance Coverage DisputeTimely NoticeDisclaimer of LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityGeneral Liability PolicyIndemnificationContributionAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,702 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