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

Diamond v. Reilly Homes Construction Corp.

Plaintiffs Dale A. Diamond and James Panek sustained injuries at a construction site in East Fishkill while assembling a modular home. The accident occurred when a suspended roof section, being hoisted to allow for 'knee wall' installation, fell on them due to bracket failure. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants Reilly Homes Construction Corporation, Chelsea Homes, Inc., and Royal Crane, Inc. The Supreme Court initially denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Reilly Homes and Chelsea Homes, while also granting summary judgment to Royal Crane. The appellate court modified the orders, reversing the denials against Reilly Homes and Chelsea Homes and granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, but affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Royal Crane.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site AccidentFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHoist ApparatusElevation DifferentialWorker SafetyContractor LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 14-02-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Limited, and Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Limited, D/B/A Village Builders v. Great American Insurance Company, American Dynasty Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Markel American Insurance Company Gerling America Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Westchester Fire Ins Company

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute between homebuilder Lennar Corporation and its CGL insurance carriers over damages caused by defective stucco (EIFS) applied to homes. The court analyzed whether negligently defective construction constitutes an "occurrence" and distinguished between covered costs (repairing actual water damage) and non-covered costs (preventative EIFS replacement, overhead). While affirming summary judgment for several insurers due to unmet self-insured retentions based on individual homes as separate occurrences, the court reversed for American Dynasty and Markel, citing unresolved factual issues regarding "known loss" and policy conditions. Lennar's extra-contractual claims against American Dynasty were ultimately denied for lack of proven damages or statutory violations.

Insurance Policy InterpretationConstruction DefectsCommercial Liability InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimsStucco DefectsDuty to IndemnifySelf-Insured RetentionsKnown Loss PrincipleSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Law
References
96
Case No. 2-07-133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2008

Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. D/B/A Benchmark Custom Homes and Mark David Rotella v. Joan Cutting

This case involves an appeal by Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes and Mark David Rotella (Appellants) against Joan Cutting (Appellee). Appellants challenged the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment and deny their motion for a new trial, primarily arguing a lack of proper notice. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that evidence of selective refusal of service established constructive notice. The court also upheld Mark Rotella's joint and several liability, citing his personal guarantee in the construction contract and his liability for tortious acts as an agent. Appellants' claim regarding a lack of fraudulent intent was overruled due to insufficient briefing.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementsDue ProcessConstructive NoticeService of ProcessJoint and Several LiabilityCorporate Agent LiabilityFraudulent IntentAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 14-07-00953-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2009

Lowe's Home Centers Inc & Natasha Tanner v. GSW Marketing, Inc. F/K/A Salesmaker, Inc. D/B/A CSA Services Southwest and Snow Mountain Construction, Inc

Natasha Tanner, an employee of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., was injured when a toilet tank fell from an elevated display and struck her head. She, along with Lowe's which intervened to assert subrogation rights, sued multiple entities including Snow Mountain Construction, Inc. (who built the display) and GSW Marketing, Inc. f/k/a Salesmakers, Inc. d/b/a CSA Services Southwest (who maintained the display) for negligent activity and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Snow Mountain and Salesmakers. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Tanner provided no evidence that either company had a duty to discover the toilet was incorrectly assembled or that they were engaged in ongoing negligent activities at the time of her injury. The court determined that the defendants' contractual obligations did not extend to inspecting the internal assembly of the toilets.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationDuty to InspectIndependent ContractorDisplay AssemblyProduct SafetyCausationTexas Appellate Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dick v. John M. Gates Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Alan F. Dick was injured when a temporary deck collapsed at a construction site in July 1984 while he was working for John M. Gates Construction Corporation, the general contractor. He and his wife sued Gates Construction, Harvest Homes (materials manufacturer), and Armand Córtese (property owner) for damages. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Gates Construction but granted summary judgment to Harvest Homes and Córtese. Gates Construction appealed the denial of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, holding that Gates Construction, as the general contractor, had a nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) to provide proper protection and that issues of fact regarding inadequate bracing precluded summary judgment in its favor.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Deck CollapseSummary JudgmentGeneral ContractorNondelegable DutyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyConstruction Site Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vaniglia v. Northgate Homes, Northgate Properties, Inc.

Plaintiff Robert Vaniglia sustained serious injuries at a Richmond County construction site on March 30, 1977, due to a backhoe entangling with an electrical conduit. Northgate Homes, the site owner and general contractor, and third-party defendant United Associates Construction & Excavating Corp., which provided the backhoe operator, were found liable. A jury initially awarded Vaniglia $1,500,000 in damages. The appellate court affirmed the findings of liability but deemed the damages excessive. It conditionally reversed the damages award, ordering a new trial unless Vaniglia agreed to reduce the sum to $1,000,000. The judgment against United Associates was affirmed.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentNegligenceLabor Law ViolationApportionment of FaultDamages AssessmentExcessive VerdictConditional ReversalNew Trial on DamagesThird-Party Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Indemnity Co. v. Castel Construction Inc.

The Home Indemnity Company sought to recover unpaid workers’ compensation and general accident insurance premiums from Castel Construction, Inc., after the primary obligor, Gemelli Realty Corp., declared bankruptcy. Castel Construction, Inc., though a named insured, argued it had no direct relationship with the broker or plaintiff and claimed it derived no benefit from the policies. However, the court found Castel Construction, Inc. expressly liable under the insurance contract for the earned premiums. The decision highlighted the benefits Castel Construction, Inc. received as a named insured, including compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 50, and distinguished its situation from a prior case where the defendant was not explicitly named. Ultimately, judgment was rendered in favor of the Home Indemnity Company for the outstanding premiums.

Insurance PremiumsWorkers' Compensation CoverageGeneral Accident CoverageContractual LiabilityNamed InsuredSubcontractor LiabilityCorporate BankruptcyConstruction LawNew York Supreme CourtInsurance Broker
References
3
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

MSK Construction, Inc. v. Mayse Construction Company

MSK Construction, Inc. (MSK) filed a breach of oral contract action against Mayse Construction Company (Mayse) for failure to pay for equipment and fuel used in a construction project for the City of Athens. Mayse denied liability and filed a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, alleging MSK failed to include concrete testing costs in their estimate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MSK, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, and denied Mayse's counterclaim. Mayse appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, finding a valid oral contract existed and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Breach of Oral ContractConstruction DisputeEquipment UsePrejudgment InterestNegligent MisrepresentationSubcontractor AgreementVendor AgreementAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationsDamages
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bobby Duncan v. First Texas Homes and First Texas Homes, Inc.

Bobby Duncan, an employee of First Texas Homes, sustained injuries after falling from stairs on a construction site. He alleged negligence, citing unsafe working conditions and failure to inspect the premises, particularly due to insufficient clearance on the stair platform that violated OSHA and company safety standards. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of First Texas. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding First Texas's actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, whether the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and if First Texas's negligence was the proximate cause of Duncan's injuries. The court emphasized that an employee's awareness of a defect does not necessarily eliminate the employer's duty in a nonsubscriber case.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityEmployer NegligenceNonsubscriber EmployerOccupational SafetyConstruction Site InjuryHazardous ConditionForeseeabilityProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
61
Showing 1-10 of 5,450 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