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
Mar 31, 2008

Ostuni v. Town of Inlet

An employee of Smith Construction, LLC (plaintiff) sustained injuries after falling from a ladder during construction and initiated a lawsuit against the unnamed defendant, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The defendant subsequently impleaded Smith Construction, LLC as a third-party defendant, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on its indemnification claim, concluding that the indemnification clause might violate General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1) if the defendant was found actively negligent. Upon appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's decision regarding indemnification, holding that the clause was valid under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1) as it only required indemnification to the extent of Smith's negligence and included limiting language "To the fullest extent permitted by law." The case was remitted for an apportionment hearing to determine the extent of indemnification owed to the defendant.

Contractual IndemnificationLabor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentGeneral Obligations LawActive NegligenceThird-Party ClaimApportionment HearingConstruction ContractIndemnification Clause
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matthius v. Platinum Estates, Inc.

JAC Construction Corp. appealed an order that granted indemnification to Grymes Hill Estates, Inc., John Culotta, Robert Ricca, and Platinum Estates, Inc., for costs and attorney's fees in a personal injury action. JAC argued that a subsequent agreement with a merger clause superseded a prior indemnification agreement. The court found the January 17th agreement to be incomplete and ambiguous, allowing the admission of the prior indemnification agreement as extrinsic evidence without contradicting the later contract. The indemnification agreement clarified insurance coverage and indemnification obligations. The court also noted that the merger clause did not extinguish the indemnification agreement because the two contracts dealt with different subject matter. Furthermore, JAC demonstrated its intent to be bound by the indemnification agreement by obtaining the required insurance. Therefore, the referee's report, finding the respondents entitled to indemnification, was properly confirmed.

IndemnificationMerger ClauseParol Evidence RuleContract InterpretationAmbiguityExtrinsic EvidenceGeneral ContractorOwnerPersonal InjuriesAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodrigues v. N & S Building Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Rodrigues, an employee of Caldas Concrete Company, Inc., was injured at a construction site. Plaintiffs commenced an action against the property owner and N & S Building Contractors, Inc., which in turn initiated a third-party action against Caldas for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed N & S's contractual indemnification claim against Caldas. N & S appealed this dismissal, arguing the agreement provided for indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the indemnification clause did not unambiguously cover injuries sustained by Caldas employees.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 241(6)Third-Party ActionConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor IndemnityGrave InjuryStrict Construction
References
5
Case No. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tonking v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

This case concerns an indemnification clause in a renovation contract between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (owner) and VEH. Mechanical Corp. (contractor). The clause obligated the contractor (VEH.) to indemnify the owner and its "agents" for certain claims. The central dispute is whether Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., a firm providing construction management services to the Port Authority, qualified as an "agent" under this clause. Plaintiff, an employee of VEH., was injured and sued Port Authority and Bovis. Subsequently, Bovis sought contractual indemnification from VEH. The Supreme Court dismissed Bovis's third-party complaint against VEH., and both the Appellate Division and this court affirmed, holding that Bovis did not qualify as an agent for indemnification given the strict construction required for such clauses and the lack of unambiguous intent in the contract.

Contractual IndemnificationConstruction ContractsAgency LawContract InterpretationThird-Party BeneficiaryWorkers' CompensationLabor LawStrict ConstructionAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buccini v. 1568 Broadway Associates

The appellate court reversed a lower court order denying summary judgment to 1568 Broadway, Inc., Manhattan Suites Realty Corp., and HRH Construction Corp. (collectively, "appellants"), who were general partners and a construction manager. Appellants had sought contractual and common-law indemnification, as well as damages for breach of an insurance procurement clause, from Marine Contractors, Inc., a subcontractor. This stemmed from an injury sustained by Anthony Buccini, a Marine employee, who successfully sued the appellants under Labor Law § 240. The appellate court found appellants were entitled to indemnification because their liability was statutory and not based on their own negligence, with Marine primarily responsible for worker safety. Additionally, Marine was found to have breached its contract by failing to name appellants as additional insureds.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractInsurance ProcurementThird-Party Action
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quevedo v. City of New York

Plaintiff Raphael A. Quevedo, an employee of Berley Industries, Inc., was injured by a boiler explosion in a building owned by the City of New York. Quevedo sued the City and V and A Oil Burner Services, Inc., alleging negligence. The City subsequently commenced a third-party action for contractual indemnification against Berley Industries, Inc., based on a clause in their maintenance contract. Berley argued the indemnification clause was void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 and that the City's notice to the insurer was untimely. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division both affirmed the enforceability of the clause. This court affirmed, clarifying that General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 only voids clauses indemnifying for *sole* negligence, and since no sole negligence was proven, the clause remained enforceable to the extent it covered joint fault. The court also rejected the untimely notice argument, citing the contract's provision that notice by either party was sufficient.

Indemnification clauseBuilding maintenance contractContractual liabilityGeneral Obligations LawSole negligenceJoint faultInsurance coverageThird-party actionSettlementAppellate review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Miller's Launch, Inc.

Gaeta Interior Demolition, Inc. (third-party defendant) filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint against it by Miller’s Launch and the City of New York (petitioners). The dispute centered on whether a contract between petitioners and Gaeta contained an indemnification provision. Petitioners argued that two documents, a request for proposal and a subsequent 'brief agreement,' constituted the contract and included an indemnification clause by incorporation. The court found the contract unambiguous but concluded that the language in the request for proposal was merely an 'agreement to agree' to an indemnification clause, lacking definite terms. Since Miller's Launch never tendered a specific indemnification agreement, the court ruled that Gaeta did not agree to indemnify petitioners as a matter of law. Therefore, Gaeta's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the claims against it were dismissed.

Contract LawIndemnificationSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintMaritime LawNew York LawWorkers' CompensationAgreement to AgreeContract InterpretationDismissal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eldoh v. Astoria Generating Co.

This legal excerpt addresses the standards for establishing contractual indemnification, particularly under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. It emphasizes that a duty to indemnify must be clearly implied from the entire agreement and surrounding circumstances, and such contracts require strict construction. The case involves a motion for summary judgment by Amertech Industries, Inc., a third-party defendant, against AAR Engine Component Services, Inc., a defendant. Amertech argued against the existence of an indemnification clause in their purchase orders, while AAR Engine contended such clauses were present on the reverse side. The court ultimately found that a triable issue of fact exists regarding the indemnification agreement, thereby denying the motion for summary judgment.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary Judgment MotionWorkers' Compensation LawIndemnification AgreementIssue of FactStrict Construction of ContractMeeting of MindsPurchase OrdersAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
3
Case No. 03-97-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1998

the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility

The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company appealed a declaratory judgment that found an indemnification provision in its servicing agreement with the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility unenforceable. Aetna had sought indemnification for sums paid to defend and settle claims by Jane Craft, alleging Aetna mishandled her workers' compensation claim with bad faith and gross negligence. The trial court's ruling, affirmed by the appellate court, determined that the indemnification clause did not expressly cover Aetna's own misdeeds. The court applied the "express negligence rule" and extended it to bad faith, gross negligence, and other alleged statutory violations, emphasizing that such liabilities must be explicitly stated in indemnity clauses. The court also addressed and rejected Aetna's arguments regarding agency, res judicata, and vested rights.

Indemnification ClauseExpress Negligence RuleBad Faith ClaimGross NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentWorkers' Compensation InsuranceServicing AgreementInsurance Code ViolationsDeceptive Trade Practices ActContract Interpretation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,934 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