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

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Graphic Arts Mutual, an automobile liability insurer, and Bakers Mutual, a workers' compensation carrier, over which policy covers an employer's derivative liability in a third-party personal injury action. An employee of Chimes Cake Co. was injured by a co-employee's negligence, leading to a third-party claim against the employer under the Dole-Dow doctrine. Graphic disclaimed responsibility, citing policy exclusions for employee bodily injury and workers' compensation obligations. The court affirmed that Graphic's automobile policy covered the employer's vicarious liability to a third-party tort-feasor, as this obligation did not fall within the stated exclusions. The decision emphasizes a functional analysis of separate insurance lines, concluding that automobile liability should cover obligations arising from vehicle operation.

Insurance disputeAutomobile liabilityWorkers' compensationThird-party actionDeclaratory judgmentEmployer's liabilityVicarious liabilityDole-Dow doctrinePolicy exclusionsCo-employee negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Melin v. Arcata Graphics

This Memorandum and Order addresses defendants' motions to dismiss a complaint filed by a former employee. The plaintiff alleges wrongful discharge by his employer, Areata Graphics, in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, and a breach of the duty of fair representation by his union, Graphic Arts International Union, Local 17-B, for failing to process his grievance. Defendants argued the claims were time-barred by the six-month limitations period of the National Labor Relations Act. The court, however, rejected this argument, relying on Second Circuit precedents that apply New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules' longer limitations periods (either three or six years) to such claims. Consequently, the court found the plaintiff's claims timely and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss.

Wrongful DischargeBreach of Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCivil Practice Law and RulesFederal JurisdictionSecond Circuit PrecedentEmployee Rights
References
11
Case No. SBA 077625, SBA 073703, SBA 085498
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

DAVID DISANDRO vs. HAAGEN PRINTING & OFFSET, GRAPHIC ARTS, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY

The Appeals Board granted Safeco's reconsideration, rescinding the prior award finding Safeco liable for contribution. Safeco is not responsible for benefits related to a cumulative trauma injury from Graphic Arts because it did not provide insurance coverage during that employment period. The Board clarified that the applicable statute regarding the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) does not compel contribution from solvent insurers who were not on risk during the specific period of injury.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationContributionCumulative Trauma InjuryInsurance CoverageCalifornia IndemnitySafeco InsuranceAllianz InsuranceGraphic ArtsHaagen Printing
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Longo v. Graphic Packaging Corp.

The claimant, a maintenance mechanic, was employed from 1961 to 2001, last by Graphic Packaging Corporation, a subsidiary of Coors Brewing Company. In 2007, he was diagnosed with interstitial lung disease due to workplace asbestos exposure, establishing March 15, 2007, as the date of disablement for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that Zurich American Insurance Company, the carrier for Coors, was liable, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Zurich and Graphic Packaging appealed, contending they were denied the right to present proof and that there was a lack of substantial evidence regarding Coors' employer status and Zurich's liability. The court found that Zurich failed to present evidence despite notice and opportunities, and the claimant's uncontroverted testimony provided substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination.

Asbestos exposureInterstitial lung diseaseOccupational diseaseWorkers' compensation benefitsEmployer liabilityInsurance carrier liabilitySubstantial evidenceUncontroverted testimonyWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd.

Ronald Borsack (also known as Ron Bell) filed a breach of contract action against Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd., Sevenarts, Ltd., Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, LLC, and David Rogath. The defendants removed the case from New York Supreme Court to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction and later jurisdiction under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards. Borsack claimed an oral agreement for a "finders fee" of five Erte artist proofs, which he alleged was memorialized in an addendum to a license agreement between Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts. The defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration as per the license agreement, while Borsack cross-moved to remand the case to state court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that diversity jurisdiction was absent as Borsack was domiciled in New York, the same as one of the defendants. However, the court determined it had federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act's Chapter 2, as the dispute involved an international commercial arbitration agreement. The court further concluded that Borsack, as an intended third-party beneficiary of the License Agreement and Addendum, was bound by its arbitration clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for a stay pending arbitration and denied Borsack's motion to remand.

Breach of ContractArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryConvention on Foreign Arbitral AwardsRemand MotionStay Pending ArbitrationContract Interpretation
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanchett v. Graphic Techniques, Inc.

Plaintiff L. Sue Hanchett was seriously injured in January 1991 while employed by James River Corporation. She and her husband filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against Richard Hicks, a design engineer assigned by Graphic Techniques, Inc., claiming he removed safety guards. Defendants moved to amend their answer to assert a Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity defense and for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, plaintiffs contested the amendment due to prejudice and argued Hicks was not a special employee. The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no undue prejudice and concluding that Hicks was indeed a special employee of James River, thereby making the Workers' Compensation Law the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy.

special employmentWorkers' Compensation Lawsummary judgmentpleading amendmentCPLR 3025 (b)negligencepersonal injuryexclusivity defenseappellate reviewSaratoga County
References
7
Case No. 650775/2013, 158002/2012
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2013

Saska v. Metropolitan Museum of Art

This opinion addresses two consolidated actions challenging the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s "pay what you wish" admissions policy. Plaintiffs alleged violations of General Business Law § 349, a 1893 statute, and breach of a 1878 lease with the City of New York, asserting a right to free admission. Justice Kornreich granted the Museum’s motion to dismiss. The court found no private right of action under the 1893 appropriations act and determined that plaintiffs, as purported third-party beneficiaries of the lease, had no greater rights than the City, which had tacitly and explicitly approved the admission policy for over 40 years. The decision underscored that compelling a de minimis payment constituted de facto free access and that plaintiffs' lawsuit would ultimately undermine the Museum’s ability to fund its public access and operations.

Museum Admission PolicyPay What You WishGeneral Business Law § 349Lease AgreementThird-Party BeneficiaryPrivate Right of ActionAppropriations StatuteInjunctive ReliefMotion to DismissMetropolitan Museum of Art
References
31
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03209
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2018

Greenwood v. Whitney Museum of Am. Art

The plaintiff, Mitchell Greenwood, sustained injuries when a piece of scrap metal fell on him during construction while he was 'fire watching' and a co-worker was welding 30 feet above. The Supreme Court granted Greenwood partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6) and 241-a claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. It affirmed the partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding a failure to secure the falling object. However, it denied summary judgment for the Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 241-a claims, dismissing the unpleaded § 241-a claim and finding triable issues of fact for the § 241 (6) claim regarding the height of the fall and the practicality of safety planks.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityProximate CauseTriable Issues of FactFire Watching
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2004

Buck v. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance

The petitioner, injured during employment, received workers' compensation benefits and settled a third-party personal injury action for $175,000. The respondent, the workers' compensation carrier, refused to approve this settlement. Petitioner sought judicial approval and an order deeming $50,000 of the workers' compensation benefits as payments in lieu of no-fault benefits, thereby limiting the respondent's reimbursable lien to $2,915. The Supreme Court granted the petition, leading to an appeal by the respondent. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion and that the petitioner was eligible for no-fault benefits.

Workers' CompensationNo-Fault InsurancePersonal Injury SettlementSubrogation LienBasic Economic LossThird-Party ActionJudicial ApprovalAppellate ReviewInsurance CarrierEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc.

This case is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Tioga County, which granted defendants' motions to set aside a $350,000 jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and ordered a new trial. The trial court's decision to grant a new trial was affirmed by the appellate court, acknowledging the trial court's discretion in evaluating errors. The basis for setting aside the verdict included the plaintiff's attorney's improper introduction of new medical evidence (CAT scan and X-rays) shortly before trial, without proper notice, and the subsequent testimony of Dr. Leonard J. Barron based on this evidence. Additionally, plaintiff's attorney engaged in prejudicial tactics during summation, attacking the reliability of defendants' medical expert and injecting speculative arguments about inflation and improper references to workers' compensation reimbursement. These combined errors led the trial court, and subsequently the appellate court, to conclude that defendants were denied a fair trial, thus justifying a new trial on damages.

Appeal ProcedureNew TrialEvidentiary RulingsDiscovery AbuseMedical Expert TestimonyJury Verdict Set AsideAttorney MisconductPrejudicial ErrorsDamages DeterminationFair Trial
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 124 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