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. ADJ7200871
Regular
Nov 08, 2012

JOSE ESCAMILLA vs. GOURMET KOSHER SAUSAGE COMPANY, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This order denies a petition for removal filed by Gourmet Kosher Sausage Company and Employers Compensation Insurance Company in the case of Jose Escamilla. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, finding no basis for removal. Therefore, the petition is denied, and the case will proceed as otherwise determined.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDenial of PetitionGourmet Kosher Sausage CompanyEmployers Compensation Insurance CompanyADJ7200871Los Angeles District OfficeApplicantDefendant
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01219
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2021

Robinson v. Foremost Glatt Kosher Caterers, Inc.

Plaintiff Barry Robinson initiated a class action against Foremost Glatt Kosher Caterers, Inc., alleging the company withheld mandatory gratuity charges from catering service workers in violation of Labor Law § 196-d. Foremost, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Kensington Event Staffing, seeking indemnification. The Supreme Court denied Kensington's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's decision. The court granted Kensington's motion to dismiss, finding that Foremost failed to state a cause of action for implied indemnification, as there were no allegations that Kensington wrongfully withheld charges or influenced Foremost's decision to retain them.

GratuitiesWage OrderImplied IndemnificationThird-Party ComplaintMotion to DismissLabor LawAppellate ReviewCatering IndustryWorkers' Rights
References
3
Case No. ADJ14218571
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

CARLOS ARTURO HERNANDEZ vs. JACOBELLISSAUSAGE COMPANY, INC.; OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY dba BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the cost petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's Findings and Order, but amended it to require defendants Jacobellis Sausage Company, Inc. and Oak River Insurance Company to pay interest and penalties on medical-legal charges until the full amount is paid. The original F&O by WCJ Woo ordered payment with interest and penalties only up to May 30, 2024, which the Board deemed erroneous, as a contested claim was found to exist at the time of the medical-legal evaluation despite the claim's acceptance.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCost PetitionerArbi Mirzaians D.C.PenaltiesInterestMedical-Legal ExpensesContested ClaimLabor Code
References
20
Case No. CA 10-00545
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

HAHN AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (plaintiff) initiated a breach of contract action against American Zurich Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendants), contending that bills issued under insurance contracts were time-barred. Defendants counterclaimed for damages stemming from plaintiff's alleged breach of these contracts. The Supreme Court partially granted plaintiff's cross-motion, deeming counterclaims for debts arising over six years prior as time-barred. Concurrently, it permitted defendants to utilize a $400,000 letter of credit to satisfy any outstanding debt, including those deemed time-barred. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the use of the letter of credit for time-barred debts, reasoning that the statute of limitations only bars the remedy, not the underlying obligation. The court also affirmed that defendants' counterclaims for debts over six years old were time-barred, as the right to demand payment accrued earlier. Finally, the court modified the order to dismiss plaintiff's second through fourth causes of action. A dissenting opinion argued that the counterclaims were not time-barred, asserting that the cause of action accrued upon demand and refusal of payment, not merely when the right to demand payment existed.

Breach of contractInsurance contractsStatute of limitationsLetter of creditSummary judgmentAppellate reviewContract interpretationTime-barred claimsAccrual of cause of actionRetrospective premiums
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 1998

Segretti v. Shorenstein Co., East, L.P.

Joseph Segretti, the plaintiff, sustained injuries after slipping on an oily substance in an office building lobby. He initiated a negligence action against Champ Gourmet Croissant, Inc., Shorenstein Company, East, L.P., and Pritchard Industries, Inc., alleging they were responsible for the hazardous condition. Initially, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions and cross-motions for summary judgment, despite their arguments of lacking actual or constructive notice. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that Segretti failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence as he could not prove the defendants created the condition or had sufficient notice of it. Consequently, the defendants' motions were granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

NegligenceSlip and FallSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeActual NoticeForeign SubstanceAppellate ReviewNew York LawCausation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hakim v. Armstrong Rubber Co.

Joseph Hakim initiated a negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries after a forklift tire he was changing exploded. He alleged that Armstrong Rubber Company negligently designed and manufactured the tire, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company negligently designed and manufactured the wheel rim, and Clark Equipment Company negligently manufactured and failed to inspect the forklift. Armstrong and Firestone successfully moved for summary judgment by presenting evidence that they did not manufacture the specific tire or rim involved, which Hakim failed to rebut with sufficient evidence. Conversely, Clark Equipment Company's motion for summary judgment was denied due to its failure to provide any evidence disproving its involvement in the forklift's manufacture or inspection.

Forklift accidentTire explosionProduct liabilitySummary judgmentNegligenceManufacturing defectDesign defectInspection failureHearsay evidencePrima facie case
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Homestead Village Assoc., L.P. v. Diamond State Insurance

Plaintiff Homestead Village Associates, LP sued its insurers, Diamond State Insurance Company and Chubb Insurance Company of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding their duty to defend and indemnify Homestead in a personal injury action. Homestead also sued its insurance broker, Capacity Coverage Company of New Jersey, for breach of contract and negligence due to late notification of the accident. All parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted Diamond's motion, finding Homestead's 16-month delay in notification unreasonable. Chubb's motion was granted in part and denied in part, as the court found late notice from Homestead, but a factual dispute remained regarding Chubb's timely disclaimer. The court also clarified that Chubb's excess policy would not 'drop down' to cover primary obligations and it had no duty to defend. Homestead's and Capacity's cross-motions for summary judgment were denied, with factual disputes remaining regarding a special relationship and Capacity's knowledge of the accident's seriousness.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionLate Notice DefenseExcess Insurance PolicyInsurance Broker LiabilityBreach of ContractNegligence ClaimChoice of LawNew York Insurance Law
References
41
Case No. ADJ1526910 (LAO 0881311) ADJ1183697 (LAO 0881312)
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

MARGARITA GIUSTRA vs. PRIMARY PROVIDER MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, DELOS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Delos Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the arbitrator's report, which found that a prior Compromise and Release agreement between the applicant and Delos Insurance Company only settled a specific injury, not the continuous trauma claim. This decision allowed National Liability and Fire Insurance Company's petition for contribution against Delos Insurance Company for a portion of benefits paid for the continuous trauma injury. The arbitrator also determined that prior conflicting judicial decisions did not bar Delos Insurance Company from being joined in the contribution proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMargarita GiustraPrimary Provider ManagementNational Liability and Fire Insurance CompanyDelos Insurance CompanyADJ1526910ADJ1183697Petition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportCompromise and Release
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1995

Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.

This case addresses a dispute between Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company (Wausau) and Continental Casualty Company (Continental), along with The Hartford Insurance Group. Wausau, as the employer's liability carrier for H. Sand & Company, successfully argued that a third-party action by Slattery-Argrett, subrogor of Continental, against H. Sand & Company, constituted an impermissible subrogation claim by an insurer against its own insured. The underlying matter involved a personal injury sustained by an employee of H. Sand & Company. Continental had initially disclaimed coverage for Sand in the third-party action. The Supreme Court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, declaring the subrogation action a violation of public policy and awarding Wausau damages. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, distinguishing the present case from prior rulings like *North Star Reins. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co.*, and emphasizing the distinction between claims for indemnification and contribution within insurance policy exclusions.

Subrogation ClaimInsurance Coverage DisputeIndemnification vs. ContributionPublic Policy in InsuranceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityGeneral Liability InsuranceExcess Liability InsuranceConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tozzi v. Long Island Railroad

Fred Tozzi, an employee of L & L Painting Company, Inc., was injured on the job in 1989, leading to a primary action against Long Island Railroad Company and a third-party action by the Railroad against L & L. Subsequently, L & L commenced a fourth-party action against its insurer, Commerce and Indemnity Insurance Company (C & I), seeking defense and indemnification under its commercial general liability policy. L & L moved for summary judgment, arguing the policy was ambiguous and regulatory estoppel applied, while C & I cross-moved to dismiss, citing an employee bodily injury exclusion. The court declined to apply regulatory estoppel due to the limited nature of New York's regulatory approval process for the insurance endorsement. However, the court found an ambiguity in the policy when considering the "Notice of Occurrence" endorsement alongside the exclusion. Construing this ambiguity in favor of the insured, the court granted L & L's motion for summary judgment, mandating C & I to defend and indemnify L & L, but also declared that L & L owed common-law and contractual indemnification to the Long Island Railroad Company.

Insurance policy interpretationCommercial General Liability (CGL)Employee bodily injury exclusionContractual indemnificationDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyRegulatory estoppelJudicial estoppelSummary judgmentAmbiguity in contract
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 7,761 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