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

Federal Insurance v. Watnick

Jay and Marianna Watnick, New York residents, were severely injured in a car accident in Quebec with Jay Anderson. They were insured by Federal Insurance Company under a policy with uninsured and underinsured motorist endorsements. After seeking limited compensation from Quebec's Régie, Federal denied their claims, arguing Anderson's vehicle was neither uninsured nor underinsured, and sought to stay arbitration. The Supreme Court granted Federal's application to stay both claims, but the Appellate Division reversed the stay for the underinsured claim. The Court of Appeals agreed that Anderson's vehicle was not uninsured. However, it disagreed with the Appellate Division on the underinsured claim, ruling that the Watnicks had not exhausted by payment the limits of all applicable bodily insurance policies as required by statute and their policy. Consequently, the Court modified the Appellate Division's order, granting Federal's application to permanently stay arbitration of the underinsured motorist claim, thereby reinstating the Supreme Court's original decision to stay both claims.

Underinsured Motorist CoverageUninsured Motorist EndorsementCar AccidentQuebec Automobile Insurance ActExhaustion of Policy LimitsInsurance LawVehicle and Traffic LawArbitration StayNew York Insurance PolicyInter-jurisdictional Accident
References
3
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found the plaintiff's claims against the federal defendants were time-barred by a 180-day statute of limitations, which superseded the general six-year APA limitation.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. 2015-04-0039
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2016

Maples, Sallie A. v. Federal-Mogul Corporation

Sallie A. Maples, an employee, alleged gradual or cumulative trauma injuries to her hands and a resulting mental injury due to her work with Federal-Mogul Corporation. The employer denied the claim, asserting failure to provide timely notice and exceeding the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court ordered the employer to provide a panel of physicians for the employee's bilateral hand arthritis, deferring other benefit requests. The employer appealed, challenging the trial court's findings on notice and statute of limitations. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the employee provided timely notice after Dr. Weikert informed her of the work-relatedness of her condition, and that the claim was filed within the statute of limitations based on the "last day worked" rule.

Cumulative traumaHand arthritisOsteoarthritisStatute of limitationsNotice requirementLast day worked ruleInterlocutory appealMedical causationMental injury claimWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
10
Case No. W2011-01807-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2012

Karim Skaan v. Federal Express Corporation

The case involves Karim Skaan's retaliatory discharge claim against Federal Express Corporation. Skaan injured his back twice and was terminated by FedEx pursuant to its medical leave policy, after exhausting his allowable medical leave. He subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging retaliatory discharge for his workers' compensation claim. FedEx sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred by a contractual six-month limitation period and that the termination was policy-based, not retaliatory. The trial court granted summary judgment on the merits of the retaliatory discharge claim but denied it based on the contractual limitation period. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx, holding that Skaan's lawsuit was time-barred by the six-month contractual limitation period in his employment agreement.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationEmployment LawContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployment AgreementMedical Leave PolicyTime-Barred ClaimUnconscionability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harber v. Leader Federal Bank for Savings

Judith Harber sued Leader Federal Bank for Savings after her ex-husband made unauthorized transactions on her account, including converting a Large Denomination Certificate (LDC) to an Instant Access account and forging her signature for withdrawals. The trial court partially granted summary judgment to both parties, ruling some claims were barred by a one-year statute of limitations (Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-4-406), but found the bank acted in bad faith regarding two withdrawals. The appellate court affirmed that Harber ratified the conversion by seeking interest benefits and that the one-year limit applied to six unauthorized withdrawals, affirming the finding of bad faith and prejudgment interest. However, the court reversed, holding that the one-year limitation did not apply to the conversion transaction itself or claims regarding interest checks, as these did not involve 'items' or 'debit entries' as defined by the statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Forged SignatureUnauthorized WithdrawalsBank LiabilityUniform Commercial CodeUCC Article 4Statute of LimitationsRatification DoctrineGood Faith RequirementPrejudgment InterestBreach of Contract
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. Council of Jewish Federations

Tyrone Humphrey sued his former employer, Council of Jewish Federations, Inc., alleging racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Humphrey claimed experiences of retrenchment, demotion, a racially hostile environment, denial of leave, unequal pay, negative performance evaluations, and retaliatory termination. The defendant moved to dismiss, citing untimely EEOC filings, unincluded claims, mootness, and statute of limitations. The court found Humphrey's EEOC filings timely due to a worksharing agreement and his hostile environment claim reasonably related. The court also ruled § 1981 claims were timely and prior arbitration did not preclude federal civil rights claims, ultimately denying the motion to dismiss in its entirety.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Motion to DismissTimeliness of ClaimsEEOC Worksharing AgreementStatute of LimitationsArbitration PreclusionHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

FSI Group v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

Plaintiff FSI, a New York limited partnership, filed a complaint against defendant First Federal Savings and Loan Association, based in South Dakota, alleging repudiation and breach of a standby agreement to purchase Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) securities. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court, presided over by Judge Motley, denied the defendant's motion, finding that personal jurisdiction was established under New York CPLR § 301 and § 302(a)(1) due to the defendant's purposeful business transactions within New York through agents. Furthermore, the court determined that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York, considering the limited partnership's principal place of business as its residence for venue purposes, distinct from its individual partners.

Personal JurisdictionImproper VenueLimited PartnershipBreach of ContractStandby AgreementGNMA SecuritiesMinimum ContactsDue ProcessAgent ActivityPurposeful Availment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Express Corp. v. Dutschmann

Marcie Dutschmann, a former Federal Express employee, sued Federal Express for retaliatory discharge and breach of contract. A jury found that Federal Express terminated Dutschmann in retaliation for sexual harassment complaints and failed to exercise good faith in its Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure (GFTP) following her termination. Federal Express appealed the $89,000 judgment, raising five points related to sufficiency of evidence, contract formation from employee handbooks, breach of contract submission, good faith and fair dealing in employment, and attorney’s fees. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for retaliatory discharge and that Federal Express's GFTP created a contractual duty of good faith, which it breached by manipulating the review process.

Retaliatory DischargeSexual HarassmentEmployment ContractEmployee HandbookGood Faith and Fair DealingPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDue ProcessGrievance Procedure
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 6,982 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