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

Anderson v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This opinion addresses a declaratory judgment action brought by Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Madison Square Garden Corporation (collectively, "the Garden") against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("Local 3"). The Garden sought a declaration that they are not liable to Local 3 for contribution or indemnification concerning a judgment previously entered against Local 3 in antecedent civil rights litigation (Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Anderson v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc.). In those prior actions, Local 3 was found liable for intentional discriminatory hiring practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court, presided over by Judge Sand in the Southern District of New York, granted the Garden's motion for summary judgment. The decision ruled that federal law governs, precluding contribution and indemnification under Title VII based on Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers. Furthermore, even if contribution were theoretically available under § 1981, it would not lie for an intentional tortfeasor, and any such claim would be defeated by a release given to the Garden by the original plaintiffs. Indemnity was also denied on similar grounds, emphasizing that an intentional tortfeasor cannot escape liability for deliberate wrongdoing.

Declaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationCivil Rights Act of 1964Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Employment DiscriminationIntentional TortFederal Common Law
References
16
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

Paschal v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.

Heard W. Paschal, a longshoreman, initiated a third-party suit against Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc., the owner of the SS CHARLES LYKES and Paschal's employer. Subsequently, Lykes, joined by its insurer Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, filed a petition for declaratory judgment. They sought judicial construction of Section 33 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act concerning their continuing liability for compensation payments if Paschal settled his third-party claim. The court, presided over by District Judge Singleton, granted Paschal's motion to strike the petition, finding that no actual or justiciable controversy existed since no settlement had been reached and the Deputy Commissioner had not issued an official ruling. The court also underscored that the Declaratory Judgment Act should not be used to bypass the administrative review procedures mandated by the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. A later motion for reconsideration filed by Lykes and Hartford was also denied, with the judge affirming the discretionary nature of declaratory relief and the absence of new facts to warrant a rehearing.

Declaratory JudgmentLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActActual ControversyJusticiable ControversyAdministrative ProcedureJudicial DiscretionSettlementThird Party ClaimDual Capacity EmployerMotion to Strike
References
12
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gates Construction Corp. v. Koschak

Walter Koschak, Jr. sustained injuries while working for Gates Construction Corporation. He and his wife, Carol Koschak, initiated a Jones Act personal injury lawsuit in New York state court. Gates Construction subsequently filed a federal declaratory judgment action to determine Walter Koschak's seaman status and then removed the state court Jones Act suit to federal court. The plaintiffs moved to remand the Jones Act suit and dismiss the declaratory judgment action. The District Court granted both motions, ruling that the removal of the Jones Act suit was untimely and declining jurisdiction over the anticipatory declaratory judgment action to prevent forum shopping and upholding the Jones Act's anti-removal provisions.

Jones ActSeaman StatusRemoval JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentTimelinessFederal Court DiscretionState Court ActionPersonal InjuryLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActForum Shopping
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employment Commission v. Camarena

The Texas Employment Commission appealed declaratory judgments concerning the constitutionality of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act's exclusion of 'agricultural labor.' While the appeal was pending, the legislature amended the Act to include agricultural workers, effective January 1, 1986. The appellate court found the controversy moot due to this legislative change and the parties' agreement on the amended Act's constitutionality. Consequently, the trial court's judgments declaring the prior exclusion unconstitutional and granting injunctive relief were reversed, with instructions to dismiss the suits. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorneys' fees to the employees, ruling that state statutes did not waive governmental immunity for such claims.

Agricultural LaborUnemployment Compensation ActMootness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityAttorneys' FeesStatutory AmendmentConstitutional ChallengeAppellate ReviewTexas Jurisprudence
References
27
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

Chavis v. New York Temporary State Commission on Lobbying

The petitioners, led by Dr. Benjamin Chavis on behalf of the Coalition for Fairness, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York Temporary State Commission on Lobbying and its Executive Director, David Grandeau. They sought to compel the Commission to adopt rules for adjudicatory proceedings compliant with the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) and to nullify a prior determination regarding a failure to file a semiannual report. The court ruled that the Commission was not an "agency" under SAPA due to a lack of rulemaking authority and the power to make final adjudicatory decisions. However, the court converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action and declared sections 1-n (b) and (c) of the Lobbying Act unconstitutional for violating federal and state Due Process Clauses by failing to provide notice and a hearing prior to determining a knowing and willful violation. The Commission's subsequently issued guidelines were deemed insufficient to rectify this statutory defect.

Due ProcessConstitutional LawAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78Lobbying ActState Administrative Procedure ActAgency DefinitionUnincorporated AssociationCivil PenaltiesNotice and Hearing
References
10
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

Allen v. Official Employment-Related Issues Committee (In Re Enron Corp.)

On February 6, 2003, 176 former Enron employees (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, seeking a court declaration that bonuses received from Enron were valid and non-avoidable. The Official Employment-Related Issues Committee of Enron Corp. (Employee Committee) responded on March 28, 2003, with a Motion to Dismiss the declaratory judgment action. The Court found the Complaint to be an improper use of the Declaratory Judgment Act, as all potential liability had already accrued from past transactions, and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or risk of increased liability. Consequently, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, thereby dismissing the Plaintiffs' Complaint and the Adversary Proceeding.

Declaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissBankruptcy CodeBankruptcy CourtEnronEmployee BonusesAvoidable TransfersJurisdictionFirst Filed RuleVenue
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 21,582 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