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

Fulton Bellows, LLC v. Federal Insurance

This case involves Fulton Bellows, LLC (FBLLC) suing Federal Insurance Company for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim. FBLLC sought defense coverage under its Employment Practices Liability (EPL) policy for an age discrimination lawsuit (Gaskey v. Fulton Bellows, LLC) filed against it. Federal Insurance denied coverage, citing a prior acts exclusion and untimely notice of the claim. The court denied Federal Insurance's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the discriminatory acts occurred after the policy effective date and whether the late notice prejudiced the insurer, given it was within the policy period. However, the court granted summary judgment for Federal Insurance on the bad faith failure to pay claim and the TCPA claim, concluding that Federal Insurance asserted good faith defenses and its denial was not deceptive or unfair.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment Practices Liability (EPL)Prior Acts ExclusionNotice ProvisionClaims-Made PolicyOccurrence PolicyPrejudice RuleBad Faith ClaimTennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)Summary Judgment
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Highland Village Parents Group v. United States Federal Highway Administration

The plaintiff, Highland Village Parents Group, challenged a federally-funded road construction project in Denton County, Texas, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lawsuit named federal and state transportation agencies and their administrators as defendants. The court dismissed claims against the state defendants, Texas Transportation Commission and Ric Williamson, ruling that the APA applies only to federal agencies. Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff's claims against the federal defendants were time-barred by a 180-day statute of limitations, which superseded the general six-year APA limitation. The court also determined that a subsequent reevaluation of the project did not reopen the claims or provide a new basis for a lawsuit, as the modifications were considered minor. Consequently, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the entire case was dismissed with prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Section 4(f) Department of Transportation ActMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Highway Administration (FHWA)Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
References
21
Case No. 16 NY3d 706
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2011

Federal Insurance v. International Business MacHines Corp.

Federal Insurance Company (Federal) sought a declaration that its excess insurance policy did not cover attorneys' fees paid by International Business Machines Corporation and the IBM Personal Pension Plan (collectively, IBM) in a class action lawsuit (*Cooper v IBM Personal Pension Plan*). The *Cooper* action alleged violations of ERISA pertaining to age discrimination. IBM sought reimbursement from Federal after exhausting an underlying Zurich policy. The core dispute revolved around whether the disputed language in Federal's "follow form" policy extended coverage to IBM's actions as a plan settlor, which are not considered fiduciary acts under ERISA. The Supreme Court initially denied Federal's motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to Federal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the policy's plain language limited coverage to acts of an insured undertaken in its capacity as an ERISA fiduciary, which IBM was not in this instance.

Insurance Policy InterpretationERISAFiduciary DutyExcess InsuranceSummary JudgmentPlan SettlorEmployee Benefit PlansContract LawPolicy CoverageAge Discrimination
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rokus v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Vincent Rokus, an author of a copyrighted musical recording, sued American Broadcasting Company, Inc. (ABC) after ABC refused to broadcast his television commercial. Rokus sought an order directing ABC to broadcast the commercial without deletions and sought compensatory and punitive damages, asserting federal claims under the Copyright Act of 1976, Title Fifteen of the United States Code, the First Amendment, and the Communications Act of 1934, along with state law claims. The District Court, presided by Judge Edward Weinfeld, granted ABC's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The court found that Rokus failed to state a valid claim under the Copyright Act as ABC did not copy or use his work, and no threatened infringement was alleged. Claims under Title Fifteen (federal trade laws) were dismissed because only the Federal Trade Commission can enforce them, and Rokus failed to identify a private right of action. First Amendment claims were dismissed as ABC's actions were not governmental. Lastly, claims under the Communications Act were dismissed as it does not provide a private right of action for enforcement or a private right of access to broadcast media. Consequently, state law claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Copyright InfringementFreedom of SpeechFederal Communications ActPrivate Right of ActionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Commercial AdvertisingBroadcast Media RegulationState Action DoctrineSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2003

Lehman Brothers, Inc. v. Wu

This memorandum order addresses a motion to dismiss brought by third-party defendant Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. against third-party plaintiff Wei Wu's claim for contribution. Wei Wu was previously accused of copyright infringement by plaintiff Lehman Brothers, Inc. The core legal question examined by the court was whether the Copyright Act, either explicitly or implicitly, or federal common law, establishes a right to contribution between a primary and an ancillary tortfeasor in copyright infringement cases. The court concluded that neither the Copyright Act nor federal common law provides for such a right to contribution. Consequently, the motion to dismiss filed by Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. against Wei Wu's claim for copyright contribution was granted.

Copyright InfringementContribution ClaimThird-Party LitigationMotion to DismissFederal Common LawCopyright ActAncillary TortfeasorPrimary TortfeasorJudicial InterpretationStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rommel v. Laffey

This is a copyright infringement action where plaintiffs alleged defendants misappropriated trade secrets, wrongfully used a business name, and infringed on common law and federal copyrights related to their real estate guide, “Homebuyers,” and the name “The Columbia County Real Estate Guide.” Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing failure to state a claim, while plaintiffs cross-moved for a preliminary injunction. The court found that federal copyright claims were premature due to lack of registration, common law copyright claims were preempted by the Copyright Act, and the misappropriation claim was either preempted or lacked sufficient contractual specifics. Claims under the Lanham Act were not expressly pleaded and lacked supporting allegations, and the claim under N.Y.Gen.Bus.Law § 130 did not confer trade name rights or remedies. Consequently, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for a preliminary injunction, and also denied defendants' request for attorney's fees.

Copyright InfringementMotion to DismissPreliminary InjunctionFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)Common Law CopyrightFederal Copyright ActPreemption DoctrineTrade Secrets MisappropriationLanham ActAssumed Business Name
References
12
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06182
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Camille v. Federation of Prot. Welfare Agencies, Inc.

The plaintiff, Marvens Camille, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, Inc.'s motions to extend time to answer and to dismiss the complaint, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for a default judgment. Camille had sued under the Child Victims Act, alleging abuse in 2002 by a staff member of Learner's Haven, which he claimed was supervised by the Federation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the Federation provided a reasonable excuse for its delay and demonstrated a meritorious defense, conclusively establishing that the plaintiff had no cause of action against it.

Personal InjuryChild Victims ActDefault JudgmentMotion to DismissReasonable ExcuseMeritorious DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRVicarious LiabilityOrganizational Responsibility
References
15
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vam Check Cashing Corp. v. Federal Insurance

Vam Check Cashing Corporation (VAM) sued Federal Insurance Company after experiencing a $120,000 loss due to an elaborate fraud scheme. Imposters tricked a cashier at VAM's Pine Check Cashing location into handing over the money. Federal denied VAM's claim, asserting the incident did not meet the policy's definition of 'Robbery,' specifically concerning the terms 'overt felonious act' and 'cognizance.' The court examined the insurance policy's ambiguous language, particularly the meanings of 'overt' and 'cognizance.' It ruled that the cashier did not need to recognize the act as criminal for coverage, only that the physical act of transferring money occurred in her presence and control. The court found Federal's interpretation would defeat the policy's purpose of protecting check cashing businesses from fraud. Consequently, VAM's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Federal's motion was denied.

Insurance Policy InterpretationRobbery DefinitionSummary JudgmentContract AmbiguityFraud SchemeCheck Cashing BusinessOn Premises ClauseOvert Felonious ActCognizance RequirementNew York Law
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 8,515 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