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

Novo Nordisk of North America, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

The plaintiffs, three Novo Nordisk entities, sued defendant Genentech seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement, and asserted antitrust claims. Genentech filed a motion to dismiss claims three and four of the plaintiffs' complaint. The court granted in part Genentech's motion, dismissing the 'sham' litigation antitrust claim (claim four) under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, finding the prior ITC proceeding was not objectively baseless. However, the court denied dismissal of the 'Walker Process' antitrust claim (claim three), which alleged fraudulent procurement of a patent, due to uncertainty regarding Noerr-Pennington's applicability to such claims and adequate pleading of a Sherman Act violation. The motion to dismiss was partially granted, dismissing the 'sham' litigation claim but allowing the 'fraudulent procurement' claim to proceed.

Motion to DismissAntitrust LawPatent InfringementDeclaratory JudgmentNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSham LitigationWalker Process ClaimSherman ActRule 12(b)(6)Patent Validity
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

6085 Strickland Associates v. Whitmore Group, Ltd.

This case involves an action where the plaintiff sued insurance brokers for negligent failure to procure insurance. The plaintiff alleged that the Genstar policy, intended for a vacant property, should have remained active alongside the Sirius policy, which covered construction-related liabilities. The Genstar policy was cancelled due to unpaid premiums. The plaintiff contended that the brokers had a duty to reinstate the policy or procure replacement coverage. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant brokers' cross-motion, finding no breach of duty. The plaintiff failed to pay the premium after receiving a cancellation notice, and there was no evidence of a specific request for the Genstar policy's renewal or concurrent operation with the Sirius policy. The brokers fulfilled their obligation by securing the Sirius policy.

Negligent failure to procure insuranceInsurance brokersSummary judgmentPolicy cancellationPremium nonpaymentConstruction insuranceLitigation costsDuty of brokerReplacement policyInsurance Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 1998

Santos v. Floral Park Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons

In a personal injury action, third-party defendants appealed from orders denying their motion to dismiss a third-party claim for breach of an agreement to procure insurance. The Supreme Court, Queens County, had initially denied the dismissal. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the initial order, as it was superseded by a subsequent order made upon reargument. The appellate court affirmed the order made upon reargument, holding that the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Act of 1996 does not bar a third-party action against an employer for breach of an agreement to procure liability insurance.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation LawBreach of Agreement to Procure InsuranceEmployer LiabilityAppealSupreme CourtQueens CountyMotion to DismissStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00986
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Amazing Home Care Servs., LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assur. Co. Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a dispute between healthcare entities (plaintiffs) and insurance entities (Applied defendants) over a workers' compensation insurance policy, the Reissuance Participation Agreement (RPA). Plaintiffs alleged a fraudulent scheme where the RPA was not properly approved by the New York State Department of Financial Services. The RPA contained a forum selection clause mandating litigation in Nebraska. The Supreme Court denied the Applied defendants' motion to dismiss, but the Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing the second amended complaint without prejudice to re-filing in Nebraska. The Appellate Division enforced the forum selection clause, finding plaintiffs failed to demonstrate it was unreasonable, unjust, or fraudulently procured, and deemed AUCRA a necessary and indispensable party.

Forum Selection ClauseWorkers' Compensation InsuranceFraudulent SchemeAppellate ReviewJurisdictionNecessary PartyIndispensable PartyChoice of Forum ActNew York LawContract Enforcement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tufts v. Corporation of Lloyd's

This AMENDED OPINION and ORDER addresses a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, The Corporation of Lloyd’s, in an independent action brought by a group of investors referred to as "Plaintiffs." The Plaintiffs sought relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) from a prior judgment in Roby v. The Corporation of Lloyd’s, which had dismissed their claims based on forum selection and choice of law clauses in their contracts with Lloyd's. They alleged newly discovered evidence of fraud by Lloyd's in procuring these clauses, claiming Lloyd's intentionally concealed massive asbestos-related liabilities and revised contracts to prevent U.S. lawsuits. Presiding District Judge Keenan granted Lloyd's motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs' evidence failed to demonstrate a direct link between Lloyd's' knowledge of liabilities and an intent to fraudulently procure the choice clauses, nor did it show affirmative misrepresentations. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' second cause of action for a declaratory judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)Motion to DismissFraudulent ProcurementForum Selection ClauseChoice of Law ClauseNewly Discovered EvidenceSecurities Law ViolationsInvestment FraudRes JudicataIndependent Action
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McAllister v. Renu Industrial Tire Corp.

The plaintiff, injured by a split-rim tire assembly during employment, sued his employer (the defendant) for 'fraudulent and intentional' impairment of his right to sue the manufacturer, alleging destruction of evidence. The defendant's president had assured the plaintiff of workers' compensation coverage, and the assembly was discarded later. Both parties testified there was no agreement to preserve the assembly. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, stating employers lack a duty to preserve such instrumentalities without prior agreement. The appellate court affirmed, finding no duty as the assembly was innocently discarded before notice of a potential lawsuit.

Destruction of EvidenceSpoliation of EvidenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityWorkers' CompensationDuty to PreserveThird-Party LawsuitAppellate ReviewFraudulent ConductTortious Conduct
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holt Construction Corp. v. Grand Palais, LLC

Holt Construction Corp. initiated an action against Grand Palais, LLC, Grand Palais Development, Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, and Howard Lepow, seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, set aside fraudulent conveyances, and recover damages for diversion of trust assets. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Holt on multiple causes of action. Defendants appealed, and Holt cross-appealed from portions of the judgment entered January 19, 2012. The appellate court dismissed certain appeals, modified the judgment by dismissing the seventh cause of action and portions of the twelfth and thirteenth causes of action related to Lien Law § 13 (5), and reversed the dismissal of claims against Howard Lepow for violations of Lien Law §§ 72 and 77, awarding judgment in favor of Holt against Lepow for $935,342.55. As modified, the judgment was affirmed with costs to the plaintiff.

Mechanic's LienFraudulent ConveyanceDiversion of Trust AssetsDebtor and Creditor LawLien LawAppellate ReviewJudgment ModificationNonjury TrialCorporate Officer LiabilityConstruction Contract
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Eisen

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) sued the Eisen law firm and its associates, along with plaintiffs and witnesses from two personal injury cases (Robbins and Nieves), alleging fraud in procuring a settlement and a jury verdict. NYCTA sought to recover monies paid, citing a Federal criminal conviction of the Eisen firm members for racketeering, including engaging in a pattern of fraudulent activities like fabricating evidence, bribing witnesses, and presenting false testimony. The court found NYCTA's claims timely and held that the defendants were collaterally estopped from denying elements of fraud due to the Federal convictions. The court granted NYCTA summary judgment on its fraud claims for both Robbins and Nieves, ordering rescission of the Robbins settlement and vacating the Nieves judgment, and also granted partial summary judgment on Judiciary Law § 487 claims against the attorney defendants. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine damages and unjust enrichment against individual defendants.

FraudPerjuryRacketeeringCivil ConspiracyJudiciary Law § 487Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentRescissionUnjust EnrichmentPersonal Injury
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Headley

The defendant, John E. Headley, an attorney and outside counsel for the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), faced charges including grand larceny, falsifying business records, and conspiracy. He was accused of fraudulently obtaining paid assignments from the NYCTA to procure independent medical examinations (IMEs) by using a fictitious name, "James Douglas," to conceal a conflict of interest. Headley moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing a lack of intent to defraud and no pecuniary loss to the NYCTA, as the contracted IME services were rendered. The court granted the dismissal of the larceny and first-degree falsifying business records counts, ruling that the prosecution failed to demonstrate criminal intent to deprive the NYCTA of property or that the submitted documents constituted "business records" for the purpose of those specific charges. However, the motion to dismiss the charges of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree was denied, as concealing his identity frustrated the NYCTA's legitimate interests in a fair vendor selection process and accurate vendor identification, thus constituting an "intent to defraud" under that statute.

Grand LarcenyFalsifying Business RecordsConspiracyFalse PretensesIndependent Medical Examinations (IMEs)Conflict of InterestIntent to DefraudPecuniary LossSufficiency of EvidenceMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 574 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