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. 2014 NY Slip Op 08848 [123 AD3d 933]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2014

Public Service Mutual Insurance v. Fiduciary Insurance Co. of America

This case involves an appeal by Fiduciary Insurance Company of America (appellant) from an order and judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (respondent), as subrogee of Peter Daversa. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the petition to confirm and denied Fiduciary's cross-petition to vacate the arbitration award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order, finding it merged into the judgment, and affirmed the judgment. The court applied closer judicial scrutiny to the compulsory arbitration award, determining that the arbitrator's decision had ample evidentiary support and was not arbitrary or capricious. The appellant's contentions regarding proximate cause, burden of proof, and prejudgment interest were found to be without merit.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationInsurance SubrogationAppellate ReviewJudicial ScrutinyEvidentiary SupportArbitrator's DeterminationProximate CausationBurden of ProofPrejudgment InterestCPLR Article 75 Proceeding
References
8
Case No. M2009-02442-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Estate of David Holt Ralston, by John A. Ralston, Personal Representative v. Fred R. Hobbs

The personal representative of David Holt Ralston's estate filed an action to rescind twelve deeds executed by Fred R. Hobbs, the decedent's attorney-in-fact, without the decedent's knowledge and for no consideration. The properties were conveyed to Hobbs, his mother, and his daughter. The personal representative alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court rescinded the conveyances for properties still owned by Hobbs and awarded monetary damages for properties transferred to innocent third parties. On appeal, Hobbs challenged the personal representative's standing, statute of limitations, the finding of fiduciary duty breach, and damage calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on all grounds, finding the personal representative had standing, the action was timely filed, and Hobbs breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized gifts not in line with the principal's gifting history.

Fiduciary DutyPower of AttorneyReal Property ConversionStatute of LimitationsDeed RescissionMonetary DamagesAppellate ReviewEstate LawUndue InfluenceAttorney-in-Fact Breach
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2004

Chao v. Duncan (Duncan)

This case involves a motion for summary judgment filed by Eugene Duncan, the Debtor, in an adversary proceeding initiated by the Secretary of Labor (DOL). Duncan, who filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11 (later converted to chapter 7), seeks to discharge a debt arising from a Consent Judgment. The DOL's complaint aims to establish the non-dischargeability of this debt under section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, alleging fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, related to his role in the International Workers’ Guild Health and Welfare Trust, which was subject to ERISA. Duncan's motion for summary judgment argues that the DOL lacked standing and the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Plan was not an ERISA plan, and that the Secretary cannot demonstrate a breach of fiduciary duties. The Bankruptcy Court denied Duncan's motion, concluding that the Secretary has standing and that res judicata prevents relitigation of the District Court's jurisdiction and the Secretary's standing, given that Duncan had the opportunity to raise these issues in the prior District Court action.

BankruptcySummary JudgmentNon-dischargeability of DebtERISA ViolationsFiduciary DutyFraudDefalcationRes JudicataSubject Matter JurisdictionStanding
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tweedell v. Hochheim Prairie Farm Mutual Insurance Ass'n

This case involves independent insurance agents, John Twee-dell, Don Hicks, and Billy D. White, who sued the Hochheim Companies and their officers after their sales representative and agency contracts were terminated. The agents alleged breach of fiduciary duties, violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), and article 21.21 of the Insurance Code. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling the agents lacked standing. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the DTPA and breach of fiduciary duties claims, concluding the agents were not "consumers" under the DTPA. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on the article 21.21 claim, holding that insurance agents, as "persons" engaged in the business of insurance, do have standing to sue for damages under article 21.21, section 4.

Insurance LawAgent TerminationDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Insurance Code Article 21.21Standing to SueSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyAppellate ReviewInsurance AgentsUnfair Competition Practices
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2005

City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Ass'n

The case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged a trial court's ruling regarding the standing of property owners to contest a proposed annexation. The property owners, including Summerglen Property Owners Association, argued the City violated statutory procedures under Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and that the annexation was prohibited by House Bill 585. The City contended the property owners lacked standing because procedural challenges require a quo warranto proceeding and H.B. 585 was an unconstitutional local law. The appellate court agreed with the City, holding that claims of procedural defects and arbitration issues did not confer standing to private individuals, as they did not render the annexation 'wholly void.' Crucially, the court also found H.B. 585 to be an unconstitutional local law, as it targeted a specific geographic area within San Antonio's extraterritorial jurisdiction without a reasonable basis. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, vacated the temporary injunction, and dismissed the property owners' claims.

AnnexationStandingQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeHouse Bill 585Constitutional LawSpecial LawTexas ConstitutionInterlocutory AppealDeclaratory Relief
References
26
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 01758
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2016

Cusimano v. Schnurr

This case involves a long-standing dispute among family members who own various real estate businesses. Plaintiffs Rita Cusimano and Dominic J. Cusimano filed an action alleging breach of fiduciary duty, accounting malpractice, and aiding and abetting fraud against accountants Andrew V. Schnurr, Michael Gerard Norman, CPA, P.C., and third-party intervenors Bernard V. Strianese and Bernadette Strianese. The Supreme Court had previously stayed arbitration of many claims as time-barred. Upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division, First Department, reconsidered the statute of limitations issues. The court modified the judgment, vacating the stay of arbitration for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Norman defendants and intervenors that fall within the six-year statute of limitations, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision.

Statute of LimitationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyAccounting MalpracticeFraud ClaimsArbitration StayContinuous Representation DoctrineEquitable EstoppelFamily Business DisputeReal Estate EntitiesInquiry Notice
References
22
Case No. 11 civ. 913, 11 civ. 4212
Regular Panel Decision

Picard v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Irving Picard, the SIPA Trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (BMIS), sued JPMorgan Chase & Co. and UBS AG, along with their affiliates and feeder funds, to recover billions in damages. The Trustee alleged that these defendants aided and abetted Madoff's Ponzi scheme through common law claims such as fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the Trustee lacked standing to pursue claims belonging to BMIS's customers, not BMIS itself. The court agreed, holding that a bankruptcy trustee typically represents the debtor, and Madoff's misconduct, imputed to BMIS, invoked the in pari delicto doctrine, precluding BMIS from suing. The court also rejected the Trustee's arguments for standing based on Bankruptcy Code Section 544(a), New York's contribution statute, and common law bailment or equitable subrogation. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss all common law claims was granted due to the Trustee's lack of standing.

Ponzi SchemeSecurities Investor Protection ActBankruptcy TrusteeStanding to SueCommon Law ClaimsAiding and Abetting FraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyIn Pari DelictoCreditor ClaimsDebtor's Estate
References
22
Case No. 07 Civ. 1358(DAB)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2009

Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc.

Plaintiff Geoffrey Osberg filed a class action against Foot Locker, Inc. and its Retirement Plan, alleging violations of ERISA due to the 1996 conversion of the plan to a cash balance system. The complaint included claims for age discrimination, insufficient notice of benefit reduction, misleading summary plan descriptions (SPDs), and breach of fiduciary duties. Defendants moved to dismiss all counts, but the court denied dismissal on grounds of standing and statute of limitations for all claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss for age discrimination (Count One) and insufficient notice under the 1996 ERISA § 204(h) (Count Two), aligning with precedents that found cash balance plans not inherently age discriminatory and that the notice provided met the then-current requirements. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss regarding the misleading SPD (Count Three) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count Four), concluding that the SPD might have been insufficiently clear about the "wear-away" effect and benefit reductions, thereby supporting the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

ERISApension plancash balance planbenefit conversionage discriminationfiduciary dutysummary plan descriptionnotice requirementsmotion to dismissstatute of limitations
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Cooper (In Re Cooper)

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion by The Cadle Company, an individual creditor, seeking authorization to prosecute the Chapter 7 estate's causes of action, specifically a Section 542 turnover action and state law fraud claims. The motion was opposed by the debtors, Gary R. and Junanne M. Cooper, and conditionally by the Chapter 7 Trustee. The court analyzes whether an individual creditor in a Chapter 7 case can be granted independent or derivative standing to pursue estate causes of action, distinguishing between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 contexts. The court concludes there is no textual basis in the Bankruptcy Code for such standing in a Chapter 7 case, noting the unique role of the Chapter 7 trustee as an independent fiduciary without the conflicts of interest often present in Chapter 11. Even if such power existed, the court finds Cadle did not present a compelling argument, as the Trustee had exercised business judgment in attempting to settle the claims. The court ultimately DENIES Cadle's Standing Motion, stating that while Cadle can pursue its independent Section 727(d) action, it cannot usurp the Trustee's role.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyDerivative StandingCreditor StandingTrustee AuthorityEstate Causes of ActionAvoidance ActionsBankruptcy Code InterpretationEquitable PowersJudicial DiscretionMotion Denied
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust

This case involves Ann Rupe, a minority shareholder and trustee for Buddy's Trust, who sued other shareholders and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation (RIC) for alleged oppressive actions and breach of fiduciary duties. Rupe claimed the defendants refused to buy her shares or meet with prospective outside buyers. The trial court ordered a $7.3 million buyout, which the court of appeals affirmed in part, finding the refusal to meet prospective purchasers oppressive, but remanding on valuation. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the defendants' conduct was not 'oppressive' under the Texas receivership statute, as it did not involve an abuse of authority with intent to harm the corporation or create a serious risk of harm to it. The Court clarified that the statute only authorizes the appointment of a rehabilitative receiver and does not permit a direct buyout remedy. Additionally, the Court declined to recognize a new common-law cause of action for 'minority shareholder oppression,' citing existing statutory and common-law protections. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Rupe's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and the potential for a buyout remedy under that claim.

Shareholder OppressionMinority ShareholdersClosely Held CorporationsFiduciary DutyBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate ReceivershipStatutory InterpretationCommon Law ClaimsCorporate GovernanceStock Buyout
References
95
Showing 1-10 of 1,383 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