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
Apr 04, 2006

In re Tower Automotive, Inc.

Federal Insurance Company objected to a Bankruptcy Court order that recommended granting summary judgment to Tower Automotive, Inc. on Federal's obligation to pay defense costs for ERISA actions. Tower commenced the action seeking a declaration of insurance coverage for lawsuits related to its employee benefit plans. Federal denied coverage, citing an exclusion in its Fiduciary Liability Policy after Securities Actions were filed. The District Court, applying Michigan law, found both parties' interpretations of the exclusion reasonable but, due to ambiguity, construed the clause against Federal. Consequently, the District Court overruled Federal's objections and granted summary judgment in favor of Tower, affirming Federal's duty to defend.

ERISAFiduciary Liability InsuranceInsurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentPolicy Exclusion InterpretationContract LawMichigan Insurance LawFederal Court ReviewBankruptcy Court Findings
References
9
Case No. 13-CV-675
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2016

Pierre v. Planet Automotive, Inc.

Plaintiff Ghislaine Pierre sued Planet Automotive, Inc. and American Suzuki Financial Services alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Magnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty Act (MMWA), and state law claims of fraud and false advertising arising from her vehicle purchase and its financing. Defendant Suzuki moved for summary judgment. The Court denied Suzuki's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's TILA claim and state law claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding TILA disclosures and applying New York's assignee liability law for state claims. However, the Court granted Suzuki's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's MMWA claim, concluding that the MMWA prohibits assignee liability where the assignee did not create the written warranty.

TILA violationMagnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty ActCommon law fraudFalse advertisingSummary judgmentAssignee liabilityRetail Installment ContractVehicle purchaseFinance chargesDisclosure statement
References
72
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05114 [129 AD3d 525]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2015

Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Union of Automotive Technicians

This case involves an appeal regarding an arbitration award concerning an E-Z Pass benefit for retired members of the Union of Automotive Technicians. The Supreme Court, New York County, modified the arbitration award to rule that the E-Z Pass benefit is a vested lifetime benefit. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this judgment, citing its disposition in previous appeals with similar issues. The court concluded that the Supreme Court reached the correct result based on established precedent.

Arbitration AwardE-Z Pass BenefitVested Lifetime BenefitPublic Employee UnionCollective BargainingAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentMemorandum of AgreementLabor DisputeAffirmance
References
3
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

In re Automotive Service Systems, Inc.

Automotive Service Systems, Inc., a company dispatching drivers, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that assessed it for additional unemployment insurance contributions totaling $19,754.76. The Board had determined that an employment relationship existed between Automotive and its drivers. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that Automotive exercised sufficient control over its drivers' work, including setting payment terms, providing trip sheets, dictating attire and vehicle type, and handling customer complaints, thereby supporting the conclusion that the drivers were employees.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDriversDispatch ServicesLabor LawEmployer Contributions
References
8
Case No. SAC 349462
Regular
Mar 11, 2008

QAHER MOKDADI vs. HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board clarified the commencement date for temporary disability payments under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). Applying its en banc decision in *Hawkins v. Amberwood Products*, the Board held that the two-year period for temporary disability payments begins on the date indemnity is *first paid* to the worker, not when it is first owed or when unemployment benefits are reimbursed. Therefore, the commencement date was established as November 9, 2006, the date the applicant received his first temporary disability indemnity check.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardHendrick AutomotiveFederal Insurance CompanyQAHER MOKDADIauto service technicianleft shoulder and spine injuryEmployment Development Department (EDD)temporary disability indemnityLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)date of commencement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2011

Karic v. Major Automotive Companies, Inc.

Plaintiffs, sales representatives, commenced an action against Major World car dealerships and individual defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) due to alleged failures to pay proper minimum wages. They moved for conditional certification of a collective action, approval of a proposed FLSA Notice, and expedited discovery. Defendants opposed, arguing discovery was substantially advanced and thus a heightened standard for certification should apply, and that certain entities should be excluded due to a lack of named representatives. The Court granted the plaintiffs' request for conditional certification, finding they met the minimal burden of showing similarly situated employees and a common compensation policy across all Major World entities. The Court also provided specific instructions for modifying the proposed class notice and ordered defendants to provide contact information for potential opt-in plaintiffs.

FLSANYLLCollective ActionConditional CertificationMinimum WageWage and HourSales RepresentativesCar DealershipsOpt-inSimilarly Situated
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2003

Claim of Soop v. Borg Warner Automotive

Claimant, an electrician at Borg Warner Automotive, filed for workers' compensation benefits after experiencing neck and left shoulder pain, leading him to stop working in February and April 2001. His physician concluded he was permanently disabled from electrician work but capable of sedentary tasks. The employer offered light-duty work, which claimant declined. Consequently, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board denied his claim, finding he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that claimant refused suitable employment.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketLight DutySedentary WorkSubstantial EvidenceDenial of BenefitsElectricianPermanent DisabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Delphi Automotive Systems Corp.

Russell Anderson, Jr. filed a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against his employer, Delphi Automotive Systems Corp., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anderson alleged he was fired on September 26, 2000, due to his race and in retaliation for filing grievances, as well as being denied several promotions. Delphi moved for summary judgment, arguing some claims were time-barred and that Anderson was terminated for violating company policy regarding drug use. The court granted Delphi's motion, dismissing Anderson's complaint with prejudice, finding no evidence of discriminatory animus or a valid retaliation claim.

Race DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentRetaliationStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation TheoryDrug Use PolicyTerminationPretext
References
11
Case No. ADJ9081819
Regular
Jul 21, 2025

JORGE ALVARADO vs. BMW OF MURIETTA, HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendants' petition for reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) from April 14, 2025. The F&A found applicant sustained an industrial injury resulting in 38% permanent disability without apportionment. Defendants contended the WCJ erred in failing to apportion disability to non-industrial factors, but the Board affirmed the WCJ's conclusion that the applicant's disability was entirely caused by medical treatment for the industrial injury, thus precluding apportionment under established legal precedent. The Board also confirmed that its decision was timely issued in accordance with Labor Code section 5909.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardInjury AOE/COEApportionmentPermanent DisabilityLumbar SpineThoracic SpineRight HipLabor Code Section 5909
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 62 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