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

DBL Liquidating Trust v. Clarkson Construction Co. (In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.)

DBL Liquidating Trust (Drexel) appealed the Bankruptcy Court's denial of summary judgment in a claim filed by Clarkson Construction Company (Clarkson). The core issue was whether Clarkson ratified approximately 3,000 unauthorized trading transactions by failing to object in writing, despite explicit contractual requirements. Clarkson argued that oral assurances from their broker, Thomas Carpenter, stating 'nothing much was going on,' constituted an oral modification or grounds for equitable estoppel. However, the court found no legal basis for these arguments, emphasizing that the Account Agreement mandated written modifications and timely written objections. The court also highlighted that Clarkson's comptroller, authorized to review account statements, never raised any objections to the trades. Consequently, the District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, ruling that Clarkson failed to present a triable issue of fact and dismissing Clarkson's claim.

Securities TradingBrokerage ContractSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelOral ModificationRatificationCommodity Customer Account AgreementUnauthorized TradingWritten ObjectionCustomer-Broker Relations
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Liquidation of the Union Indemnity Insurance

The Superintendent of Insurance, as liquidator of Union Indemnity Insurance Company of New York, sought an order to compel Frank B. Hall and Co. of Connecticut, Inc. (Hall) to turn over funds held at First American Bank of New York. These funds originated from a workers' compensation insurance program between Union and the Public Employer Risk Management Association (PERMA), where Hall acted as Union's agent for premium collection and claims administration. Hall and PERMA opposed the application, arguing the program was self-insurance and Union was not entitled to the funds, with PERMA seeking a constructive trust. The court found that the segregated funds, representing unutilized premiums for claims, constituted general assets of Union and were not protected. It further determined that the PERMA-Union agreement was not a self-insurance plan, as Union bore the primary risk and the plan lacked Workers' Compensation Board approval. Consequently, the court granted the liquidator's application, directing Hall to remit the funds.

Insurance LiquidationAgency AgreementPremium FundsGeneral AssetsSelf-InsuranceConstructive TrustInsurance LawSuperintendent of InsuranceThird-Party AdministratorClaims Administration
References
2
Case No. SFO 0444182 SFO 0470385
Regular
Nov 16, 2007

MARK CRUZ vs. WESTLAKE AUTO SERVICE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, by INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found the State Compensation Insurance Fund liable for 4% of pre-liquidation benefits paid by Reliance and 100% of post-liquidation benefits paid by CIGA. The Board clarified that "workers' compensation benefit payments" encompass temporary disability, permanent disability, and medical treatment but specifically exclude administrative costs such as medical management, copying, and bill review. Therefore, the State Fund is not obligated to reimburse CIGA for these administrative expenses.

CIGAReliance National Insurance CompanyState Compensation Insurance Fundcontributionpermanent disabilitymedical treatmentcumulative traumaspecific injurypre-liquidation paymentspost-liquidation payments
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Motors Liquidation Co.

This bench decision addresses two contested matters within the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Debtor Motors Liquidation Company (Old GM): a motion for class certification by 'Apartheid Claimants' and the Debtors' objection to these claims. The Apartheid Claimants, South African residents, alleged Old GM aided and abetted the apartheid system. Judge Robert E. Gerber denied class certification, finding that individual issues predominated over common ones, class action was not superior in bankruptcy, and it would unduly delay the case. Furthermore, the court disallowed the underlying claims entirely, citing the binding Second Circuit precedent in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., which established that corporations cannot be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute.

Class ActionBankruptcyAlien Tort StatuteCorporate LiabilityApartheid ClaimsClaims DisallowanceDue ProcessSubject Matter JurisdictionSecond CircuitChapter 11
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Liquidation of Midland Insurance

Policyholders New York Dock Railway (NYDR) and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal (BEDT), joined by claimants Buividas and Romacho, moved to confirm a referee's report that found coverage for their claims by the Stock Workers' Compensation Security Fund. The Superintendent of Insurance, as liquidator of Midland Insurance Company, cross-moved to disaffirm the report, arguing against Security Fund coverage based on his interpretation of relevant statutes. The court reviewed the referee's decision, finding it erroneous due to a misinterpretation of legislative history and intent regarding security fund coverage limitations, particularly concerning Chapter 801 amendments. Upholding the Superintendent's rational interpretation, the court denied the motion to confirm and granted the cross-motion to disaffirm, affirming the denial of security fund coverage.

Workers' Compensation Security FundInsurance Coverage DisputeMidland Insurance Company LiquidationFederal Employers' Liability ActJones ActLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryThird-Party IndemnificationEmployer's Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liquid Asphalt Distributors Ass'n v. Roberts

The case concerns the interpretation of the 1983 amendments to Labor Law § 220, which govern prevailing wage rates for workers on public projects. Prior to 1983, the statute required extensive surveys to determine prevailing wages. The amendments aimed to streamline this by allowing the adoption of collectively bargained wage rates if 30% of workers in a specific trade and locality were subject to such agreements, and redefined 'locality' based on these agreements. Petitioners, Suit-Kote Corporation and Liquid Asphalt Distributors Association, Inc., challenged a wage schedule set by the respondent for asphalt distributors, arguing the respondent failed to verify the 30% threshold and that the threshold was not met. The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that the 1983 amendments shifted the burden of proof to employers to demonstrate that less than 30% of workers were subject to the adopted wage rate, a burden the petitioners failed to meet with sufficient evidence.

Prevailing wageLabor Law § 220Collective bargaining agreementsStatutory interpretationBurden of proofPublic worksWage schedulesAppellate reviewIndustrial relationsLegislative intent
References
2
Case No. ADJ1857578
Regular
Jun 23, 2009

MIRNA LICEA vs. MINSON CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for PHICO INSURANCE COMPANY in liquidation

This case involves a lien claim by Missirian Orthopedic Medical Group, assigned to KM Financial Services, for medical treatment provided to Mirna Licea. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), representing the insolvent insurer Phico Insurance Company, denied the lien based on Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), which excludes claims by assignees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the statute clearly prohibits payment to assignees, including medical providers who have assigned their accounts receivable. The Board relied on *Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. CIGA* for the principle that assigned claims are not "covered claims" under the Guarantee Act.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAPhico Insurance Companyliquidationinsolvent insurerlien claimantassigneecovered claimInsurance Code 1063.1(c)(9)
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04437 [186 AD3d 401]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2020

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

This case, part of the New York City Asbestos Litigation, involved claims from William E. Robaey and Marlena Robaey against Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, among others, for peritoneal mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure from gaskets. A jury awarded significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. On appeal, Federal-Mogul challenged the sufficiency of evidence for specific causation and the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the finding of specific causation, distinguishing the facts from prior rulings, particularly Juni. However, the court found the damages for past pain and suffering and past loss of consortium materially deviated from reasonable compensation and ordered a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff agreed to a stipulated reduction.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaToxic TortSpecific CausationExpert TestimonyDamages RemittiturPain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ILGWU National Retirement Fund v. B.B. Liquidating Corp.

The ILGWU National Retirement Fund moved to amend its complaint and for summary judgment, while B.B. Liquidating Corp. cross-moved for summary judgment. The Fund alleges BBLC, operating as Blassport, contributed to the Fund, then sold assets, incurring withdrawal liability when the purchaser ceased contributions. BBLC denies ever contributing to the Fund and thus denies liability. The court granted the motion to amend the complaint, allowing the Fund to correct the defendant's name and add Norman Zeiler as a defendant. However, both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied due to a material factual dispute regarding whether Blassport-BBLC ever made contributions to the Fund, which is pivotal to determining BBLC's obligation to seek arbitration.

Pension benefitsMultiemployer planERISAMPPAAWithdrawal liabilityArbitrationSummary judgmentAmended complaintCorporate lawShareholder liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liquidation Trust v. Daimler AG (In Re Old Carco LLC)

This opinion addresses the motion by Daimler AG and its subsidiaries (the "Daimler Entities") to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by the Liquidation Trust of Old CarCo LLC. The Trust's complaint alleges that Daimler orchestrated fraudulent conveyances by stripping assets from CarCo through a complex restructuring prior to selling a controlling interest to Cerberus Capital Management LP. Chief Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez concludes that the restructuring and subsequent sale constituted a single integrated transaction, and the complaint failed to adequately account for all value received by CarCo. Consequently, the court dismisses certain constructive fraud claims (Counts I, II, III, IX, X) without prejudice, allowing for repleading to clarify consideration and insolvency, while dismissing intentional fraud claims (Counts V, VI) and one constructive fraud claim (Count IV) with prejudice due to insufficient particularized facts.

Fraudulent ConveyanceMotion to DismissBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingAsset StrippingCorporate RestructuringIntegrated Transaction DoctrineConsideration ValuationInsolvency AnalysisPleading StandardsInsider Preference
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 543 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