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

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. American Re-Insurance Co.

The case revolves around a dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company and American Re-Insurance Company regarding a pollution exclusion clause in a reinsurance policy. National Union sought reimbursement from American Re after settling claims where employees were exposed to metalworking fluids. American Re denied coverage, arguing its pollution exclusion applied. The court, applying Ohio law, found American Re's pollution exclusion ambiguous due to its broad language and its intended purpose of covering environmental contamination. Consequently, American Re's motion for summary judgment was denied, and National Union's motion to strike American Re's defense was granted, requiring American Re to "follow the fortunes" of National Union.

ReinsurancePollution Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationFollow the Fortunes DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAmbiguity in ContractsOhio State LawDiversity JurisdictionIndustrial Contamination
References
31
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03287
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Dejesus v. Downtown Re Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Brian Dejesus was injured when a steel tubing fell through a gap in a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, addressing multiple indemnification and breach of contract claims among the owner (Downtown Re Holdings LLC), general contractor (Noble Construction Group, LLC), and various subcontractors. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Noble's negligence and granted Downtown summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. due to its negligence in bridge erection. Claims against City Safety Compliance Corp. were dismissed as its role was merely advisory. The decision also involved contractual indemnification between Downtown/Noble and The Safety Group, Ltd., granting a breach of contract claim against TSG for failing to procure required insurance.

Construction AccidentSidewalk Bridge DefectIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance ProcurementBreach of Contract
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2005

In re the Claim of Abramson

Claimant, an accountant placed by Staff Plus, Inc. at Goldman Sachs, was denied extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Staff Plus was his base period employer, making him ineligible because Staff Plus was not a provider of services to an air carrier. An initial appeal led to remittal for further record development regarding the relationship between Staff Plus and the claimant. After re-evaluation, the Board reiterated its decision, finding a clear employment relationship between claimant and Staff Plus, which was supported by the evidence. The court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the denial of TEUC-A benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsTEUC-ATemporary Employment AgencyEmployment RelationshipBase Period EmployerDisplaced Airline-Related WorkersEligibility for BenefitsAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

This Memorandum & Order by Judge Korman addresses objections to the allocation of settlement funds in the In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation class action. The Pink Triangle Coalition and Disability Rights Advocates proposed separate cy pres distributions for homosexual and disabled Nazi victims, respectively, aiming to fund education, research, and advocacy programs. They argued these groups were historically overlooked and difficult to identify for individual compensation. Judge Korman rejected both proposals, reaffirming the current allocation strategy of distributing funds directly to the neediest individual Holocaust survivors. The judge reasoned that the overwhelming and life-sustaining needs of survivors, particularly in areas like the Former Soviet Union, supersede the proposed cy pres distributions. He emphasized that the primary goal is restitution to individual victims, that there are no distinct sub-classes, and that disabled survivors are already major recipients of aid.

HolocaustClass Action SettlementFund AllocationCy Pres DoctrineVictim CompensationHomosexual VictimsDisabled VictimsNazi PersecutionHumanitarian AidSurvivor Support
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Am

Following an initial guardianship proceeding where AM sought to be appointed guardian for AT, who was declared incapacitated, the court appointed TT as personal needs guardian and Frank G. D’Angelo, Jr. as property management guardian on April 2, 2007. AM subsequently filed a motion to reargue, seeking continued access to AT, permission to remain in AT's East Atlantic Beach home with gratuitous transfers, and attorney's fees. The court, in this opinion, re-evaluated its prior interpretation of Mental Hygiene Law § 81.16(f) and granted AM an award of $16,000 in counsel fees from AT's estate. The court also indicated willingness to entertain a schedule for AM's contact with AT, but adjourned the application regarding the real property and gratuitous transfers, pending further submissions and an accounting from AM regarding his management of AT's affairs and the sale of her Beekman Place property.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonReargument MotionMental Hygiene Law Article 81Property ManagementPersonal Needs GuardianFiduciary DutySubstituted JudgmentCounsel FeesEstate Planning
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Tiffany A.

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order that dismissed a petition to terminate parental rights, releasing the child, Tiffany A., to her biological mother despite admissions of permanent neglect. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the Family Court erred by not applying a 'best interests of the child' analysis solely, instead relying on a flawed legal framework that prioritized the biological mother's parental rights due to her rehabilitation efforts. The appellate court emphasized the foster parents' superior ability to care for Tiffany's special needs, given her difficult birth and developmental challenges. The matter was remitted for a new dispositional hearing before a different judge to determine Tiffany's best interests, acknowledging her recent extended stay with her biological mother.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfarePermanent NeglectFoster Care AdoptionBest Interests of the ChildSubstance Abuse RehabilitationFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewDispositional HearingJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 1989

In re Sonja I.

This is an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County, which adjudicated the adoptive parents of eight-year-old Sonja I. to be neglectful. The mother removed the child to a filthy residence with inappropriate adults, including an alcoholic who exposed himself and a paroled convict, and frequently left the child in unsuitable care. The father was also found to be neglectful for misrepresenting the mother's conduct and failing to protect the child. The Family Court's decision to remove the child from the parents' custody and place her in foster care, supported by expert social worker testimony, was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court rejected the respondents' arguments that neglect was not established by a fair preponderance of evidence or that the removal constituted an abuse of discretion.

Child NeglectFamily LawChild CustodyAppellate ReviewParental RightsAbuse and Neglect ProceedingsFoster Care PlacementEvidentiary StandardsMarital DiscordAlcohol Abuse
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Charny

Nathaniel K. Charny, an attorney, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States by making false statements regarding campaign contributions. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee sought his suspension. The Court had previously issued an interim suspension and ordered a hearing. After a Hearing Panel recommended a two-year retroactive suspension, the Committee moved to confirm, while Charny cross-moved for an 18-month suspension and immediate reinstatement. The Court ruled to suspend Charny for two years, retroactive to April 15, 1999, with reinstatement on April 15, 2001, acknowledging mitigating factors like his inexperience, lack of financial gain, and significant cooperation with authorities in its decision to grant partial relief on the cross-motion.

Attorney MisconductProfessional DisciplineLegal EthicsConspiracy to DefraudFalse StatementsCampaign FinanceInterim SuspensionRetroactive SuspensionMitigationNew York Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Wrobel

This Chapter 13 bankruptcy case involves a dispute between debtor Wrobel and her former matrimonial lawyer, Hogan Willig law firm, regarding an $88,000 fee. Wrobel used funds, partly from the firm's work, to purchase a $75,000 homestead condominium, and the firm objected to her Chapter 13 plan on 'good faith' grounds. The court previously ruled that 11 U.S.C. § 522(o) could not be asserted by the firm and set aside their judgment lien against the homestead. After several amendments, Wrobel proposed a 27% payment plan, offering 'sacrifices' through her adult children's commitment to help. The court found this plan to be 'fundamentally fair' and confirmed it, rejecting all of the firm's objections and certifying the order for immediate appeal.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyGood Faith PlanHomestead ExemptionAttorney Fees DisputeCreditor ObjectionsBankruptcy Planning11 U.S.C. Section 522(o)11 U.S.C. Section 1325(a)(3)11 U.S.C. Section 1325(a)(7)Secured Claims
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Keenan

This decision addresses a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case concerning Dr. Keenan and his spouse, referred to as the Debtors-in-Possession. The Debtors were set to receive $100,000 from an insurance claim for pre-petition ear injuries sustained by Dr. Keenan. An unsecured creditor, Norwest Financial New York, Inc., sought a court order to limit the Debtors' use of these proceeds, fearing they would be used for personal expenses instead of for the medical practice or creditors. The court declined to micromanage the estate by imposing such limitations, emphasizing that it is better for the parties to negotiate a resolution. It also cautioned the Debtors that their financial conduct could lead to creditors seeking conversion or dismissal of the case.

Chapter 11BankruptcyDebtor-in-PossessionInsurance ProceedsPersonal Injury ClaimPost-petition IncomeCreditor RightsEstate AdministrationJudicial RestraintNegotiation
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,085 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