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
Jan 23, 2008

AIU Insurance v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The case involves a dispute between two insurers regarding their respective coverage obligations for a mutual insured in an underlying action following a fatal construction site accident. Plaintiff, who insured both the site owner and the subcontractor, sought reimbursement from defendant, who also insured the employer under a workers’ compensation policy, for half of a settlement paid in the underlying action. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to plaintiff, obligating defendant to reimburse plaintiff. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, vacating the judgment and granting summary judgment to defendant. The appellate court ruled that the antisubrogation rule would have compelled the dismissal of any third-party action, thereby precluding plaintiff from obtaining reimbursement from a coinsurer.

Insurance CoverageSubrogationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFatal AccidentCoinsuranceAppellate ReversalUnderlying ActionThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. M2003-02647-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2005

Tennessee Insurance Guaranty Association v. Centre Insurance Company

The Tennessee Insurance Guaranty Association (TIGA) sued Centre Insurance Company, seeking to be exonerated from workers' compensation obligations it assumed after Commercial Compensation Insurance Company's insolvency. TIGA contended that Centre was liable due to its predecessor's name appearing on Form I-1 certificates of insurance, despite Commercial Compensation issuing the actual policies. The trial court granted summary judgment to Centre, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court distinguished the case from controlling precedent, holding that TIGA, as a statutory successor to an insolvent insurer, could not assert claims against Centre that the insolvent insurer itself did not possess. The court emphasized that TIGA inherits the rights and obligations of the insolvent insurer, and since Commercial Compensation Insurance Company had no claim against BICO/Centre, TIGA also had none.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance Company InsolvencyGuaranty AssociationsSummary Judgment AffirmationStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Policy CertificationSuccessor Rights and ObligationsEmployer Insurance LiabilityTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2004

HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. v. Royal Surplus Lines Insurance

This case involves HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. (HRH) and National Union Fire Insurance Company (National) seeking to establish Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company's (Royal) obligation to defend HRH in an underlying action and reimburse legal fees. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially ruled that Royal was obligated to defend HRH and reimburse legal fees from December 30, 1999. Upon appeal, this order was modified to change the reimbursement start date to November 22, 2000, and otherwise affirmed. The court rejected Royal's argument that a specific endorsement overrode a general blanket additional insured endorsement, which Royal claimed would make them coprimary insurers with National. The duty to defend was clarified to be triggered upon the commencement of the underlying action against HRH.

Insurance disputeGeneral contractor liabilityAdditional insured endorsementDuty to defendInsurance reimbursementSummary judgmentPolicy interpretationConstruction site accidentPrimary insuranceOther insurance clause
References
0
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

St. Paul Mercury Insurance v. Lexington Insurance

This case involves a declaratory judgment action between four insurance companies: St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company and Centennial Insurance Company (Applicants), and Lexington Insurance Company and Landmark Insurance Company (Defendants). The dispute centers on the priority of coverage and obligations for a $4.8 million settlement in an underlying personal injury case, the 'Foret Case'. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, ruling that waiver and estoppel claims by the defendants were not applicable between insurers. It determined that both primary policies (Landmark and Centennial) must be exhausted first, with defense costs prorated. For the excess policies (Lexington and St. Paul), liability was also to be prorated. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment in favor of St. Paul and Centennial on the negligence claims brought by Landmark and Lexington.

Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentOther Insurance ClausesExcess InsurancePro Rata InsuranceEscape ClausesWaiver and EstoppelEquitable SubrogationProration of Liability
References
42
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03815 [139 AD3d 497]
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2016

Mt. Hawley Insurance v. American States Insurance

Mt. Hawley Insurance Company and other plaintiffs, Chatsworth Builders, LLC and 537 West 27th Street Owners, LLC, initiated a declaratory judgment action against J&R Glassworks, Inc. for breach of its obligation to procure insurance related to a construction project. J&R Glassworks, Inc. failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a default judgment. J&R's subsequent motion to vacate this default judgment was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial, clarifying that the default judgment was limited solely to the claim regarding the breach of the obligation to procure insurance, as agreements to indemnify are distinct from agreements to procure insurance.

Default JudgmentVacate DefaultInsurance ObligationBreach of ContractContractual IndemnificationProcure InsuranceAppellate ReviewConstruction ProjectSubcontractorDeclaratory Judgment
References
3
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. 03-15-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2015

California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.

The appellants, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA), and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), collectively "Guaranty Associations," are appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee, Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ("Hill Bros."). The suit was filed on March 31, 2009, alleging Hill Bros. failed to reimburse the Guaranty Associations for payments of workers' compensation benefits and claim handling expenses within the deductible limits of a policy issued by the insolvent Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Hill Bros. based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the cause of action accrued on April 1, 2002. The Guaranty Associations argue that the accrual date is incorrect, as their statutory obligations had not been triggered, payments had not been made, and demand for reimbursement had not occurred by that date. They also contend that their compliance with Pennsylvania law (the "Pennsylvania Act") in seeking reimbursement through Legion in Liquidation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for any delay, making reasonableness a fact question. Furthermore, they assert the policy was a continuing contract, and the statute of limitations should not have accrued until full performance on April 28, 2009. Alternatively, they argue that claims for deductible payments made within four years of filing suit (March 31, 2005) are not barred.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty AssociationStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeductible ReimbursementInsolvencyInsurance PolicyContinuing ContractPennsylvania ActTravis County
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance dispute over the duty to defend and indemnify. The plaintiff, Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc., sought a declaratory judgment against Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire, claiming primary insurer obligations in an underlying personal injury action. Stellar, insured by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company, had subcontracted duct work to Serge Duct Design, which was insured by Merchants. Serge was obligated to name Stellar as an additional insured. After a worker's injury and subsequent lawsuit, Merchants disclaimed coverage. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, ruling that Merchants is obligated as the primary insurer to defend Stellar from the time the second amended complaint was served, but not to indemnify Stellar. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an assessment of costs incurred by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company.

Insurance CoverageAdditional Insured StatusDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPrimary InsurerExcess InsurerSummary JudgmentContract LawSubcontract AgreementPersonal Injury Action
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 16,314 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