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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06582 [131 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2015

Tully Construction Co. v. Illinois National Insurance

Tully Construction Co., Inc. (Tully) and Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) appealed an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County. The Supreme Court denied their separate motions for summary judgment on the complaint and granted Illinois National Insurance Company's (Illinois) cross-motion for summary judgment. The dispute centered on Illinois's obligation to indemnify Tully under a commercial umbrella liability insurance policy, which was contingent upon the exhaustion of underlying insurance. The Supreme Court found that Zurich's Workers Compensation and Employers Liability policy had an unlimited liability provision. As a result, the excess coverage of Illinois's umbrella policy was never triggered. The Appellate Division affirmed the order and judgment, declaring that Illinois had no obligation to indemnify Tully and that Zurich must reimburse Illinois for $2,500,000.

Insurance coverage disputeUmbrella liability insuranceWorkers' Compensation policyEmployers Liability policySummary judgment motionIndemnification obligationPolicy exhaustionExcess coverage triggerPrimary insurer vs. excess insurerAppellate Division Second Department
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 1981

Jensen v. Illinois Glove Co.

Plaintiff Daniel Jensen was injured while operating a forklift at work. The Workers' Compensation Board awarded him compensation, listing Illinois Glove Company and Cayadutta Tanning Company, Inc. as employers. Jensen then initiated two actions; Action No. 1 against Illinois Glove and Action No. 2 against Cayadutta, both alleging premises ownership. Illinois Glove appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment in Action No. 1, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Board's determination of employer status divested the court of jurisdiction. The court disagreed, finding that the Board's listing of both companies as employers was merely a procedural step and not a definitive resolution of the employer-employee status. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that a limited factual issue regarding Daniel Jensen's employment status needed to be resolved by the court.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployer LiabilitySubsidiary CompanySummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionJurisdiction DisputeEmployment StatusFactual IssueInsurance CoverageRes Judicata
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Texas Illinois Natural Gas Pipeline Co.

Magnolia Petroleum Company initiated an action against Texas Illinois Natural Gas Pipeline Company, seeking injunctive relief, a declaration of rights, and money damages. The controversy stemmed from the Federal Power Commission's (FPC) assertion of jurisdiction over natural gas producers and gatherers following the Supreme Court's decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin. Magnolia sought to terminate its contracts based on FPC orders, while Texas Illinois filed a complaint with the FPC, arguing Magnolia was a regulated 'natural gas company'. The District Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the declaratory relief concerning the FPC orders' validity, citing the need for exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, it retained jurisdiction over the claim for money damages and the contractual dispute regarding gas withdrawals for repressuring. Consequently, the court denied Magnolia's request for injunctive relief against Texas Illinois's FPC proceeding and partially granted and partially denied the motion to dismiss.

JurisdictionNatural Gas ActFederal Power CommissionContract TerminationDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefPrimary JurisdictionAdministrative LawGas SalesRepressuring Operations
References
11
Case No. W2013-02453-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2015

Linda J. Russell, administrator of the Estate of Milford R. Russell, Jr. v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

Linda Russell brought a FELA action against Illinois Central Railroad Company for the death of her husband, Milford R. Russell, Jr., from throat cancer, alleging it was caused by occupational exposure to carcinogens at Illinois Central's maintenance shops in Memphis, Tennessee. A jury awarded her $4,255,000, later reduced to $3,335,685 due to a medical expense offset. Illinois Central appealed, challenging the admissibility of plaintiff's medical experts' causation opinions, the jury's causation finding, evidentiary rulings, and the denial of post-trial motions concerning the statute of limitations and counsel's alleged violations. Mrs. Russell cross-appealed the verdict reduction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error, and upheld the offset of medical expenses paid by the railroad's health insurance plan.

FELAOccupational ExposureCarcinogensThroat CancerAsbestosDiesel ExhaustEnvironmental Tobacco SmokeCausationExpert TestimonyDifferential Diagnosis
References
84
Case No. W2013-01605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2014

Delores Blackmon v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

Plaintiff Delores Blackmon sued Illinois Central Railroad Company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging her husband's death from mesothelioma was caused by toxic exposure during his employment. The railroad moved for summary judgment, arguing a prior release signed by Mr. Blackmon barred the current suit, which the trial court granted. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the boilerplate nature of the release and the lack of conclusive evidence that Mr. Blackmon understood the risk of mesothelioma at the time of signing made summary judgment inappropriate under the Wicker approach for FELA releases. The court emphasized the need to determine the parties' intent regarding known risks, not just known injuries.

FELAMesotheliomaAsbestosisRelease ValiditySummary JudgmentKnown Risk DoctrineKnown Injury DoctrineBoilerplate LanguageOccupational ExposureToxic Substances
References
47
Case No. 04-08-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2009

Midwest Employers Casualty Company on Behalf of Terry English v. Charles Harpole, Jim Carroll, Alan Kwast, Albert Lopez and Brock Pittman

This appeal examines a negligence claim brought by Midwest Employers Casualty Company, on behalf of injured football coach Terry English, against several referees, including Charles Harpole. English sustained a severe head injury after Harpole collided with him in a designated restricted area during a high school football game. Midwest, the worker's compensation insurer for English's employer, argued the referees had a duty to enforce safety rules and that Harpole failed to exercise reasonable care. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the referees, ruling that Harpole owed no duty to foresee English's presence in the restricted area, as English was in violation of game rules, and there was no evidence of a breach of duty by the referees.

AppealSummary JudgmentNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilitySports LawFootball RefereePersonal InjuryWorker's CompensationTexas Law
References
34
Case No. ADJ7986894
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

Nicolas Gomez vs. Wedemeyer Bakery, Illinois Midwest Springfield

Applicant Nicolas Gomez petitioned for reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition because they need more time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues. This allows for a more complete understanding of the record and ensures a just decision. All future filings related to this reconsideration petition must be submitted directly to the Appeals Board Commissioners in San Francisco, not district offices or e-filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGrant of ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemWCJTrial Level Documents
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jennings v. Illinois Central Railroad

Theo Jennings, a trackman, sustained a disabling knee injury when a 'dry rotted' maul handle broke during spike driving. He sued Illinois Central Railroad Company under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence due to an unsafe workplace and equipment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Railroad. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that Jennings presented insufficient evidence of the Railroad's negligence. The court dismissed arguments regarding maul exposure and prior breakages as speculative and determined that using a maul was not inherently unsafe, thus not requiring the Railroad to provide automated alternatives.

Federal Employers Liability ActRailroad IndustryWorkplace SafetyDefective ToolsSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimDry RotMauls and SpikesEmployee InjuryEvidence Sufficiency
References
26
Case No. ADJ6683258
Regular
Jun 08, 2010

HILLMAN BARRERA vs. JAMM INDUSTRIESI CORPORATION, ILLINOIS MIDWEST SPRINGFIELD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant. The WCAB reviewed the petition and the report of the administrative law judge. Based on their review, the WCAB adopted the judge's report and denied the Petition for Removal. The order officially denies the applicant's request for removal, affirming the administrative law judge's decision.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardJAMM INDUSTRIESI CORPORATIONILLINOIS MIDWEST SPRINGFIELDADJ6683258Administrative Law Judgedeny removalDeidra E. LoweFrank M. BrassJames C. Cuneo
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Webb

This case involves an appeal by Owens-Illinois, et al. (appellants) challenging a temporary injunction obtained by Marilyn Rose Webb, et al. (appellees). The injunction prevents the appellants from pursuing anti-suit injunctions in Canadian courts, which sought to prohibit Canadian plaintiffs from continuing their personal injury asbestosis claims in Texas. The Texas district court granted the temporary injunction to protect its jurisdiction over the ongoing litigation. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court in protecting its jurisdiction by enjoining its corporate citizens from actions in Canada that would impede the Texas proceedings. The court also addressed principles of international comity and the "clean hands" doctrine, ruling against the appellants on both points.

anti-suit injunctionextraterritorial jurisdictioncomityforum non conveniensTexas lawCanadian lawasbestosispersonal injurytemporary injunctionabuse of discretion
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 229 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