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

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance

This case involves a dispute between two insurance companies, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (excess insurer) and Commercial Union Insurance Company (primary insurer), concerning liability for an injury claim. Michael Jutt, an employee of Minuteman Press International, Inc., was injured while on a Minuteman-owned boat. Commercial Union, the primary insurer, denied coverage and refused to defend Minuteman, leading Hartford, the excess insurer, to provide defense and settle Jutt's claim for $135,000. Hartford subsequently sued Commercial Union for breach of fiduciary duty. The District Court affirmed Hartford's standing to sue, recognizing a direct fiduciary duty owed by a primary insurer to an excess insurer, and found that the "paid employees" exclusion in Commercial Union's policy was ambiguous. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Hartford, ordering Commercial Union to pay $135,000 plus interest.

Insurance LawExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceFiduciary DutyEquitable SubrogationPolicy ExclusionAmbiguous Contract TermDeclaratory Judgment ActionStanding to SueMarine Insurance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2008

Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance

In this insurance coverage dispute, IICNA, Romano's excess insurer, sought reimbursement from St. Paul (Yonkers' insurer) and Yonkers (general contractor) for a $2 million payment made to settle an underlying personal injury suit involving Eugene Flood. Flood, a Yonkers employee, was injured due to a cable left by subcontractor Romano. IICNA settled the underlying action without St. Paul's consent, believing St. Paul's policy was primary and Yonkers was contractually obligated to indemnify. The court denied IICNA's claims, finding St. Paul was not bound by the non-consented settlement and had properly tendered defense to Romano. Furthermore, IICNA's subrogation claim against Yonkers was barred by the antisubrogation rule, as Yonkers was an additional insured under IICNA's policy.

Insurance CoverageReimbursementSubrogationAntisubrogation RuleAdditional InsuredIndemnification AgreementLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSettlement Consent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1992

National General Insurance v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

This case concerns a declaratory judgment action regarding insurance coverage following a fatal airplane crash. Warren Geddes, president of American Investor Services, Inc. (AIS), was piloting a plane carrying Gary Conway, an AIS employee, when it crashed, killing both. National General Insurance Company, insurer of the plane owner, sought for Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, AIS's workers' compensation insurer, to defend and indemnify AIS and Geddes' Estate in a wrongful death action. Hartford denied coverage for Geddes' Estate, arguing he was not a named or additional insured under their policy. The court modified the initial judgment, declaring that Hartford has no duty to defend or indemnify the Estate of Geddes, while otherwise affirming the judgment.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentWrongful DeathDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyNamed InsuredAdditional InsuredWorkers' Compensation PolicyAirplane CrashEstate Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fulton Boiler Works, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance

Fulton Boiler Works, Inc., filed an action against several insurance companies regarding defense and indemnification for thousands of asbestos claims. The court addressed multiple pending motions for summary judgment, focusing on the proper allocation of indemnity costs among the liable parties, Fulton's obligation for uninsured years, the applicability of equitable estoppel against insurers, and Travelers' specific obligations concerning notice of claims and disclaimers. The court ruled that a pro rata allocation of indemnity costs is appropriate, with Fulton liable for periods it was uninsured. Equitable estoppel was deemed inapplicable to bar insurers from seeking contribution, and Travelers was found to have received proper notice for many claims and is barred from disclaiming coverage due to untimely disclaimers. This order, along with a previous one, sets the 'ground rules' for resolving past, pending, and future asbestos claims.

Asbestos LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeIndemnity AllocationSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelNotice ProvisionsDisclaimer of CoveragePro Rata AllocationInjury-in-factComprehensive General Liability Policy
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nationwide Insurance v. Empire Insurance Group

This case concerns a dispute over insurance coverage. Marcos Ramirez was injured while working for Fortuna Construction, Inc. at premises owned by 11194 Owners Corp. Fortuna had subcontracted work from Total Structural Concepts, Inc. and agreed to add Total Structural as an additional insured on its general liability policy with Empire Insurance Group and Allcity Insurance Company. Ramirez sued 11194 Owners Corp. and Total Structural. Total Structural then commenced a third-party action against Fortuna. Nationwide Insurance Company, as Total Structural's insurer and subrogee, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Empire and Allcity after discovering Total Structural was an additional insured on their policy, demanding coverage for the Ramirez action. The Supreme Court granted Nationwide's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding that Total Structural failed to provide timely notice of the Ramirez action to Empire and Allcity as required by the policy. The court emphasized that timely notice is a condition precedent to recovery and that lack of diligent effort to ascertain coverage vitiates the policy. Consequently, the appellate court granted Empire and Allcity's cross-motion, declaring they are not obligated to defend or indemnify Nationwide/Total Structural.

Insurance CoverageTimely NoticeCondition PrecedentDeclaratory JudgmentAdditional InsuredSubrogationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal InjuryGeneral Liability Policy
References
8
Case No. ADJ1124123 (BGN 0064929) ADJ3374432 (BGN 0061307)
Regular
Oct 22, 2018

MARY BAKER vs. SWEEETHEART CUPS; CIGA by SEDGWICK CMS for FREMONT INSURANCE in liquidation and PORTEOUS FASTENERS/PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, CHUBB INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, reversing the finding that CIGA remained liable for permanent total disability indemnity and medical treatment for the applicant's industrial injuries. The Board found that because the applicant's injuries resulted in a joint and several award with a solvent insurer, Pacific Indemnity, CIGA has no obligation to pay as "other insurance" was available. The decision clarifies that CIGA is absolved of liability for medical treatment jointly caused by both injuries, but remains liable for treatment solely caused by the September 1979 injury. Pacific Indemnity is now solely responsible for all remaining permanent total disability indemnity and medical treatment costs, adjusting for payments already made by CIGA.

CIGASweetheart CupsPorteous FastenersFremont InsurancePacific IndemnityChubb InsuranceWilkinson doctrinejoint and several liabilitycovered claimsother insurance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

Allianz Underwriters Insurance v. Landmark Insurance

This case involves an appeal by Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, an excess liability insurer, against the law firm Underberg & Kessler, LLP. Allianz alleged that Underberg, retained by the primary insurer General Star Indemnity Corporation to represent their mutual insured Dunlop Tire Corporation in an underlying wrongful death action, breached its fiduciary duty and committed professional negligence. Allianz claimed Underberg failed to initiate a third-party action against Nicholson & Hall, Dunlop's employer (also insured by General Star), to protect General Star's interests over Dunlop's and Allianz's. The Supreme Court initially dismissed Allianz's complaint against Underberg. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, holding that Allianz could pursue its claim against Underberg based on principles of equitable subrogation and a "near privity" relationship, thereby reinstating the complaint.

Equitable SubrogationLegal MalpracticeProfessional NegligenceExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceFiduciary DutyNear PrivityDismissal ReversalAppellate ReviewIndemnification Clause
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transcontinental Insurance v. State Insurance Fund

This case involves a dispute between two insurers, Transcontinental Insurance Company (plaintiff) and State Insurance Fund (defendant), regarding their contribution to the defense and settlement of an underlying personal injury action. Transcontinental, which insured the contractor Master, sought a declaration that State Insurance Fund, Master's workers' compensation insurer, should contribute as a co-insurer for expenses incurred defending and settling the action on behalf of NYPA. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, applying the antisubrogation rule. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, vacating the dismissal but affirming the application of the antisubrogation rule, declaring that State Insurance Fund is not obligated to reimburse Transcontinental for the expenses.

Insurance DisputeAntisubrogation RuleDeclaratory JudgmentCommercial General Liability PolicyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceIndemnificationCo-insurancePersonal Injury ActionAppellate ReviewContractual Obligation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1981

State v. New Hampshire Merchants Insurance

This case involves cross-appeals concerning insurance coverage for a State employee, David L. Sinnamon, after an accident. The Attorney-General defended Sinnamon when New Hampshire Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company both refused to provide coverage, despite a prior ruling establishing their respective primary and secondary duties to defend. The State then commenced an action seeking reimbursement for legal fees incurred. Initially, summary judgment was granted against Merchants but dismissed against Travelers due to perceived lack of contractual privity. The appellate court modified this decision, concluding that both insurers breached their independent duty to defend Sinnamon, thus granting summary judgment on liability against both companies and remanding for a damages hearing.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentCross AppealsReimbursement of Legal FeesPublic Officers LawState Employee DefenseBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewDeclaratory Judgment
References
3
Case No. CA 11-00156
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2011

MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND

Plaintiff, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, initiated an action against New York State Insurance Fund to recover funds related to an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. The core issue was the defendant's obligation to indemnify Jerrick Waterproofing Co., Inc. for a construction accident. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, which the defendant appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendant was indeed obligated to provide unlimited coverage to Jerrick Waterproofing, despite a policy exclusion, as a common-law right to indemnity existed. Consequently, the plaintiff's excess coverage was not triggered.

Insurance disputeWorkers' CompensationIndemnificationExcess coverageSummary judgmentAppellate reviewNew York lawEmployer liabilityPolicy exclusionCommon-law indemnity
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 12,825 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