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

Preserver Insurance v. Ryba

This is a declaratory judgment action where an unnamed plaintiff insurance company appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting Northern Assurance Company of America's cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend and indemnify East Coast Stucco & Construction, Inc., in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact against Northern's prima facie showing that Insurance Law § 3420 (d) applied, rendering the plaintiff’s disclaimer untimely. Additionally, Northern established that the injured party was subject to Workers’ Compensation Law, precluding the application of the policy’s liability limit. The court remitted the matter for entry of a judgment declaring the plaintiff is obligated to defend and indemnify East Coast.

Insurance LawDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewTimely DisclaimerInsurance Coverage
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2009

Nassau Plaza Associates, L.P. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance

In an action for a declaratory judgment, the defendant appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment, arguing late notice under an insurance policy. The plaintiffs, however, demonstrated they provided timely notice according to the policy's 'Notice To Company' endorsement. The court found that notice was properly given once the injured worker exhausted workers' compensation claims, thus making the plaintiffs aware of a liability matter. Any alternative interpretation by the defendant was deemed ambiguous and construed in favor of the plaintiffs. The order denying the defendant's motion was affirmed, and upon searching the record, summary judgment was awarded to the plaintiffs, declaring the defendant obligated to defend and indemnify them in the underlying action.

Declaratory JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyInsurance PolicyTimely NoticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation ClaimLiability MatterPolicy Endorsement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North American Co. v. York Equities, Inc.

This case concerns an insurance carrier's attempt to disclaim liability under a policy issued to York Equities, Inc., following an injury sustained by Dzelil Mamudoski at York's premises. The plaintiff contended that York failed to provide timely notification of the accident as required by the policy, waiting until five days after the Mamudoskis filed a lawsuit, more than 19 months after the incident. However, prior notification from Mrs. Mamudoski to York only inquired about Workers' Compensation, with no indication of a negligence claim. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the insurer's application for summary judgment and instead declared that the insurer was obligated to defend or indemnify York. This appellate court unanimously affirmed both the judgment and a subsequent order on reargument, concluding that York's delay in notification was excused by a good faith belief that liability did not exist until the lawsuit was filed.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentTimely NoticeGood Faith BeliefDisclaimer of LiabilityAppellate ReviewIndemnificationDuty to DefendProperty AccidentPremises Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2008

QBE Insurance v. D. Gangi Contracting Corp.

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed an order declaring that plaintiff insurer QBE was not obligated to defend or indemnify defendant general contractor Gangi in a personal injury action. The court found that QBE properly disclaimed coverage due to Gangi's late notice of the underlying accident, which occurred three years prior. Gangi's president, who had contemporaneous knowledge of the worker D’Ambrosi’s severe injuries, failed to promptly notify QBE. The court ruled that the president's knowledge was imputed to Gangi, triggering its duty to notify, and rejected Gangi's excuse of a good faith belief of nonliability given the severity of the injuries and potential Labor Law strict liability. QBE’s subsequent disclaimer was deemed timely, and effective against D'Ambrosi’s counsel despite not specifically addressing D'Ambrosi’s own notice failure.

Insurance DisclaimerLate NoticeGeneral ContractorWorker InjuryImputed KnowledgeCorporate OfficerPolicy BreachSummary JudgmentAppellate AffirmationNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2012

310 East 74 LLC v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

The Supreme Court affirmed an order granting the defendant insurer's motion for summary judgment, thereby relieving the insurer of the duty to defend or indemnify plaintiffs in an underlying personal injury action. The court determined that plaintiffs' seven-month delay in notifying the insurer of the accident was unreasonable and that they failed to establish a good-faith belief in nonliability. Key evidence included the building superintendent's knowledge of the worker's fall and apparent injury, which was imputed to the plaintiffs and necessitated a more thorough inquiry. Additionally, the accident involved a construction worker on plaintiffs' property, indicating potential Labor Law liability, and the appearance of an investigator further put plaintiffs on notice. Finally, the court noted that the insurer was not obligated to demonstrate prejudice from the untimely notice, as the policy predated the relevant amendments to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (5).

Insurance LawDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentUntimely NoticeGood Faith BeliefNon-liabilityPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1979

Hughes, Harrison & Brown Roofing, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance

Plaintiffs, a corporation and individuals, initiated an action seeking a declaration that their insurance company, the defendant, was obligated to defend and indemnify them in a negligence lawsuit filed by an employee, Patrick Paul Black. The underlying negligence action alleged that the corporation failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. The defendant insurer denied its obligation, citing policy exclusions related to workers' compensation liabilities and disputing coverage for the individual plaintiffs. Initially, the Supreme Court, Orange County, granted the plaintiffs' request for accelerated judgment, compelling the insurer to provide defense. However, this judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, with the appellate court noting the absence of the actual insurance policy and the impropriety of adjudicating coverage without it, especially concerning the workers' compensation exclusion.

Insurance coverage disputeDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyWorkers' compensation exclusionAccelerated judgmentNegligence actionEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewPolicy interpretationSummary judgment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Kolodny

Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine if it was obligated to indemnify Chaim S. Kolodny or provide coverage for claims stemming from a fatal 1990 automobile accident. GEICO argued a policy exclusion applied because the vehicle was for Kolodny's regular use. The Supreme Court initially granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that GEICO's disclaimer, issued over a year after receiving notice of the accident, was untimely and lacked an adequate explanation for the delay. Consequently, GEICO was found to be obligated to provide coverage. The appeal from the intermediate order was dismissed.

Insurance CoverageAutomobile AccidentDeclaratory JudgmentTimely DisclaimerPolicy ExclusionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEstate AdministrationIndemnificationRegular Use Clause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Binyan Shel Chessed, Inc. v. Goldberger Insurance Brokerage, Inc.

The plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for negligence and a declaration that Colonial Cooperative Insurance Co. must defend and indemnify them for a 1999 incident involving Abraham Katz. The dispute arose after Goldberger Insurance Brokerage, Inc., American Building Corporation's broker, issued a certificate implying Colonial liability coverage for the plaintiff, which Colonial denied, stating no such policy existed. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions by both Colonial and Goldberger, deeming them premature. On appeal, the court granted Colonial's motion, dismissing the complaint against it, but affirmed the denial of Goldberger's motion, finding further discovery necessary to address potential fraud concerns regarding the insurance certificate.

NegligenceInsurance LawSummary JudgmentCertificate of InsurancePrivity of ContractFraud ClaimAppellate ReviewInsurance Broker LiabilityAdditional InsuredIndemnification
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security Insurance

The case examines if an insurer's breach of the duty to defend obligates it to indemnify the insured for a settlement, even when coverage is contested. Plaintiff Servidone Construction Corporation, an insured, settled an underlying claim after its insurer, Security Insurance Company, withdrew defense citing a policy exclusion. The lower courts ruled that Security was liable to indemnify Servidone due to its breach and the possibility of coverage. The Court of Appeals reversed, asserting that a duty to indemnify only arises from an actual covered loss, not merely from a breach of the duty to defend. It placed the burden on the insurer to prove the loss was not covered and remitted the case for further proceedings to determine actual policy coverage.

Duty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractInsurance LawSettlement AgreementCoverage DisputeWorkers' CompensationFederal Tort Claims ActCommon Law IndemnityContractual Indemnity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of North America v. Dayton Tool & Die Works, Inc.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Meyer challenges the majority's interpretation of an insurance policy exclusion clause concerning an insured's obligation to indemnify another for bodily injury to an employee. The majority concluded that an obligation by way of contribution is not excluded. Judge Meyer argues this interpretation is flawed, asserting that 'indemnify' in common parlance includes contribution, making the exclusion applicable. He maintains that the ordinary businessman would understand the clause to exclude such obligations, irrespective of legal distinctions between indemnity and contribution or the perceived ambiguity of 'indemnify'. Consequently, Judge Meyer would have reversed the order in the Dayton Tool case and affirmed in the County of St. Lawrence case, contrary to the majority's rulings.

Insurance Policy InterpretationIndemnity vs ContributionBodily Injury ExclusionEmployee LiabilityContractual InterpretationCommon Parlance of LawDissenting OpinionWorkers' CompensationLiability InsuranceInsurance Law
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 214 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