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. ADJ10614325
Regular

, APPLICANT, vs. , FORB DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition for reconsideration in the case of Alex Campos v. Forb Development Company. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), giving great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations. The WCAB also admonished the applicant's attorney for impugning the WCJ's integrity with inappropriate language in the petition. The petition for reconsideration was denied, and sanctions were threatened for future violations.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ credibilitywitness demeanorsubstantial evidenceattorney admonishmentimpugning integritysanctionable conductLabor Code § 5813California Code of Regulations § 10561
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2011

East 51st Street Crane Collapse Litigation v. Lincoln General Insurance

This Supreme Court order addresses an insurance coverage dispute stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which led to multiple claims against the property owner, East 51st Street Development Company, LLC. The primary conflict involved insurance companies Lincoln General, AXIS Surplus, and Interstate Fire and Casualty regarding their duty to defend East 51st Street and reimburse Illinois Union Insurance Company for defense costs. Initially, the Supreme Court granted various motions for summary judgment, establishing duties to defend and determining policy priority. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying Lincoln General's assertions of excess coverage and declaring Lincoln General primarily obligated to provide coverage to East 51st Street. Other aspects, such as AXIS and Interstate's duty to share defense costs, and East 51st Street's status as an additional insured, were affirmed.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendDefense Costs ReimbursementPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSummary Judgment MotionAdditional InsuredCrane Collapse LitigationPolicy InterpretationInsurance Policy Limits
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hastings Development, LLC v. Evanston Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Hastings Development, LLC (Plaintiff) and Evanston Insurance Company (Defendant) regarding insurance coverage. Hastings sought a declaratory judgment that Evanston was obligated to indemnify it under a commercial general liability policy for a personal injury lawsuit, the Cohen Action. Evanston had denied coverage, citing an "Employer's Liability" exclusion. The Court found the exclusion ambiguous and, applying the contra proferentem rule, granted Hastings' motion for summary judgment, mandating indemnification. Additionally, the Court dismissed Hastings' claim for bad faith denial of insurance coverage, as New York law does not recognize it as a separate tort in these circumstances.

Insurance CoverageCommercial General Liability PolicyDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer's Liability ExclusionContract InterpretationAmbiguity in Insurance PoliciesContra Proferentem RuleSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissBad Faith Claim
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stottlar v. Ginsburg Development Corp.

An employee of W.C. Shopovick & Co., Inc., a carpentry subcontractor for Ginsburg Development Corp. (GDC), was injured. The employee sued GDC, who then impleaded Shopovick for indemnification. Shopovick had both Workers' Compensation (State Insurance Fund) and Comprehensive General Liability (CNA Insurance Company) policies. Shopovick initiated a fourth-party action to determine which insurer was responsible. The Supreme Court initially ruled that State Insurance Fund was solely liable. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, citing General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, which allows for contractual indemnification for negligence of parties other than the promisee. The court concluded that both State Insurance Fund and CNA Insurance Company are obligated as co-insurers for Shopovick's liability.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationContractual IndemnityWorkers' Compensation PolicyGeneral Liability PolicyCo-insurersSubcontractorGeneral ContractorNegligenceThird-Party Claims
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00815
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2022

Lapinsky v. Extell Dev. Co.

Ronald Lapinsky, a construction worker, sued Extell Development Company and others after slipping on snow and ice at a worksite. His claims included common-law negligence, Labor Law § 200 (safe workplace), and Labor Law § 241 (6) based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d) (slippery surfaces). The Appellate Division modified a Supreme Court order, granting Lapinsky summary judgment on his common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Tishman Construction Corp., citing Tishman's control over the ingress path and failure to clear snow. The court also denied summary judgment for Tishman on these claims and denied W5 Group LLC's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. Additionally, contractual indemnification claims against W5 were dismissed due to the anti-subrogation rule, as W5 was covered under the Owners Controlled Insurance Program.

Construction accidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSlippery conditionSummary judgmentCommon-law negligenceAnti-subrogation ruleContractual indemnificationWorkplace safetySnow and ice
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04227 [231 AD3d 223]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2024

JDS Dev. LLC v. Parkside Constr. Bldrs. Corp.

This appeal concerns a dispute over a performance bond in a construction project, the Steinway Tower, between JDS Development LLC (beneficiary) and Allied World Insurance Company (surety) regarding delays by Parkside Construction Builders Corp. (principal). JDS sought to recover delay damages from Allied under an A312 performance bond. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that JDS failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions precedent outlined in paragraph 3 of the A312 bond, which require notice of potential default and termination of the principal while the bonded work is still in progress. JDS issued these notices only after the work covered by the bond was completed and the principal had abandoned the larger project. The court reiterated that strict compliance with these conditions is necessary to trigger the surety's obligations, including for delay damages.

performance bondsurety liabilityAIA Document A312conditions precedentconstruction delayscontract defaultterminationsummary judgmentAppellate Divisioncontract law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Maltais

The petitioner, an employee of Linden Hills Development Corporation, sustained injuries in a work-related accident on land owned by Classic Developers of Schodack. After obtaining an unsatisfied default judgment against Classic under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to Classic's bankruptcy, the petitioner initiated a CPLR 5227 special proceeding. The goal was to pursue Classic's contractual indemnification claims against James J. Maltais, Linden Hills, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G). The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing the exclusivity provision of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the indemnification agreement was intended to shift liability between the original parties, not to allow the petitioner a direct action against the employer beyond workers' compensation benefits. Additionally, the court found Maltais relieved of his indemnification obligation due to an effective assignment of the contract.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIndemnification AgreementCPLR 5227 EnforcementLabor Law § 240Statute of Frauds DefenseContract AssignmentDefault JudgmentThird-Party LiabilityEmployer ImmunityInsurance Policy Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Forbes

Joseph Patrick Williams was injured in a 1984 fall at the Armbrusters' property where William Forbes was a general contractor. Williams, who received workers' compensation benefits, sued Forbes and the Armbrusters. Forbes, having impleaded Williams's employers David Rowe and D. Rowe Home Improvements, sought to amend his answer to include a Workers' Compensation Law defense and moved for summary judgment, which the court denied, although it granted the Armbrusters' cross-motion for summary judgment. Forbes appealed the denial of his summary judgment motion. Williams subsequently moved to dismiss Forbes's appeal as untimely. The court denied Williams's motion, ruling that the 30-day appeal period under CPLR 5513(a) only begins when the appellant is served notice of entry by the prevailing party, not by co-defendants like the Armbrusters. Consequently, Forbes's appeal was deemed timely.

AppealTimeliness of AppealService of NoticeCPLR 5513Workers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissNassau CountyAppellate DivisionPrevailing Party
References
8
Case No. 89 N.Y.2d 786
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1997

ITRI BRICK CORP v. Aetna Cas.

This case clarifies the enforceability of indemnification agreements in construction contracts under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. The Court of Appeals held that such agreements, if they purport to indemnify a general contractor for any portion of damages caused by its own negligence, are entirely void and unenforceable as against public policy, rather than merely partially unenforceable. The decision stemmed from two consolidated appeals, Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and Stottlar v Ginsburg Development Corp., where general contractors were found partially negligent for worker injuries. The Court affirmed the judgment in Itri and reversed the Appellate Division's decision in Stottlar, reinstating the Supreme Court's original judgment. The Court emphasized the legislative intent to prevent contractors from shifting liability for their own negligence.

Indemnification AgreementConstruction LawSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceStatutory InterpretationGeneral Obligations LawInsurance CoverageVoid ContractPublic PolicyNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2000

Polonetsky v. American Broadcasting Companies

This case involves a plaintiff who sustained personal injuries after a slip and fall on their employer's premises. The employer's corporate parent, ABC, Inc., and its subsidiary, Ambroco Development Corp., moved to dismiss the complaint and cross claims against them. Additionally, the employer, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., sought to dismiss cross claims brought by the floor waxing company, Harvard Maintenance Inc. The court modified the prior order, granting the dismissal motions for American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. and Ambroco Development Corp. on the grounds that cross claims against the employer were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and Ambroco made a prima facie showing it did not own or maintain the premises. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for ABC, Inc., as there was sufficient evidentiary material to raise an issue of fact regarding its involvement in maintaining the premises.

Personal InjurySlip and FallPremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawCorporate VeilParent-Subsidiary LiabilityCross-ClaimsMotion to DismissSummary Judgment StandardsNew York Appellate Procedure
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,555 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