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

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Keith Staulcup

This case involves an appeal by Keith Staulcup and entities associated with him (Staulcup defendants) against the Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund (SIF). The SIF sought to recover unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums and damages for statutory and common-law fraud, alleging that Staulcup made material misrepresentations in the insurance application. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the SIF. On appeal, the court dismissed the appeal from the order, modified the judgment, and affirmed it as modified. The appellate court found a triable issue of fact regarding mutual mistake concerning the first cause of action for unpaid premiums, thus denying summary judgment on that specific claim. However, it upheld the summary judgment for the second and third causes of action related to fraud, concluding that Staulcup knowingly omitted crucial information.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PolicyUnpaid PremiumsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCorporate EntityPersonal LiabilityMutual MistakeStatutory FraudCommon-Law Fraud
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2008

Commissioner of State Insurance Fund v. F & V Distribution Co., LLC

The Commissioner of the State Insurance Fund (SIF) initiated an action to recover allegedly unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums from an undisclosed defendant. The core issue was whether certain 'outside drivers', who made deliveries for the defendant but were not on its payroll, should be considered employees for premium calculation purposes. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, after a nonjury trial, granted the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, dismissing the complaint due to SIF's failure to establish a prima facie case. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that SIF did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an employer-employee relationship under either the 'control test' or the 'relative nature of the work test'. The SIF's auditors had not adequately investigated the relationship between the defendant's management and the outside drivers.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorsPrima Facie CaseInsurance Policy DisputePayroll CalculationAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialCPLR 4401State Insurance Fund
References
4
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05765
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2014

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Kaywood Properties, Ltd.

The case involves an appeal by Kaywood Properties, Ltd., from an order denying its motion for summary judgment. The Commissioners of State Insurance Fund sued Kaywood Properties for allegedly unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. Kaywood Properties argued it had no employees during the relevant period, thus owing no premiums. The Supreme Court denied their motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found that Kaywood's affidavit contained only conclusory assertions without sufficient evidentiary support to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PremiumsSummary JudgmentAffirmationAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityPayrollEvidentiary SupportConclusory AssertionsSupreme Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. P.S.G. Construction Co.

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund obtained a judgment against Bridgeworks for unpaid workers' compensation premiums. Bridgeworks, prior to its dissolution and without satisfying the judgment, made loans to FSG Construction Co., Inc. The Commissioners then commenced a special proceeding against FSG, alleging the loans were fraudulent under Debtor and Creditor Law § 273-a. The Supreme Court denied the petition, citing the six-year statute of limitations. This appellate court reversed that decision, ruling that the statute of limitations began from the date of judgment entry (April 24, 2009), making the proceeding commenced on April 13, 2010, timely. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the merits.

Statute of LimitationsFraudulent ConveyanceDebtor and Creditor LawWorkers' Compensation PremiumsUnpaid LoansAppellate ReviewJudgment EnforcementKings CountySpecial ProceedingConstructive Fraud
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2000

Royal Insurance Co. of America v. Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund

The claimant sought 50% reimbursement of defense costs from the State Insurance Fund (Fund) for litigation related to a bridge collapse, after the Fund ceased contributions. The Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the claimant, finding an implied contract. On appeal, the Fund argued State Finance Law § 112 (2) (a) precluded such a contract without Comptroller approval and that factual issues existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding the Fund acts as a private insurer in litigation and is estopped from denying the implied contract, also finding no material factual issues precluding summary judgment.

Reimbursement of Defense CostsImplied ContractState Insurance FundCo-insuranceSummary JudgmentEstoppelState Finance LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Hermitage Insurance

The State Insurance Fund (SIF) initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine its obligation to defend and indemnify Frank Tricarico Contractors, Inc. (FTC) in a separate personal injury lawsuit. Frank Tricarico, FTC's sole stockholder, had previously opted out of Workers' Compensation coverage but was injured in a job-related accident. In the underlying action, Tricarico sued a third party, who then impleaded FTC. SIF initially provided a defense for FTC, but questioned its duty after Tricarico alleged he was not an employee. Hermitage Insurance Company, FTC's general liability insurer, disclaimed coverage. While the Supreme Court initially ruled that SIF was obligated to defend, the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court concluded that SIF had no duty to defend or indemnify FTC because Frank Tricarico was not an employee, and the failure to disclaim coverage cannot create coverage where the policy itself does not apply.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityEmployee ExclusionDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. P.S.G. Construction Co.

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund (SIF), a judgment creditor, initiated a special proceeding against ES.G. Construction Co., Inc. (PSG) to invalidate alleged fraudulent conveyances made by Bridgeworks of Greater New York, Inc. (judgment debtor and SIF's original defendant) to PSG. Both Bridgeworks and PSG were solely owned by Paul Grosman. SIF sought recovery of an unpaid loan balance of $41,268. PSG moved to dismiss, arguing the claim was time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213 (1). The court, following Second Department precedent, held that claims under Debtor and Creditor Law § 273-a accrue at the time of the conveyance, not when a judgment is obtained. As the conveyances occurred more than six years before the special proceeding commenced, the petition was dismissed as time-barred.

Fraudulent ConveyanceStatute of LimitationsDebtor and Creditor LawCPLRWorkers' Compensation InsuranceJudgment CreditorSpecial ProceedingCorporate VeilIntercorporate LoansDissolved Corporation
References
10
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06428
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2016

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. NY Minute Management Corp.

This case concerned an action for nonpayment of workers' compensation premiums brought by the Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund against NY Minute Management Corp. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. However, the plaintiff's motion to renew was granted, leading to the vacation of the prior order, dismissal of claims pertaining to drivers' premiums, and restoration of remaining claims for non-drivers' premiums to mediation. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision to grant renewal, citing appropriate judicial discretion in the interest of justice. It also found the defendants' argument regarding "new legal theories" to be unavailing.

Workers' CompensationPremium ClaimsSummary JudgmentMotion to RenewIndependent ContractorsInsurance PolicyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionInterest of JusticeAffirmance
References
1
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. B167017
Significant
Nov 18, 2004

General Casualty Insurance and Regent Insurance, Joseph A. Lane, American Home Assurance Company vs. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and California Insurance Guarantee Association

The court has requested responses from the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (WCIRB) and the California Insurance Commissioner regarding the exclusion of special employees from a special employer's workers' compensation policy, specifically questioning the use and requirements of Form No. 11 for this purpose.

WCIRBForm No. 11limiting endorsementsrestricting endorsementsspecial employeesgeneral employerstemporary employeesleased employeesInsurance CommissionerCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 13,065 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