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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
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. 2015 NY Slip Op 09254
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2015

Guevera v. Simon Property Group, Inc.

Ignacio Guevera, an employee, suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder due to an electrical shock while performing routine maintenance in a retail store. He sued Simon Property Group, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores, Corp., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Guevera's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding Guevera's activity was routine maintenance, not covered by Labor Law §§ 240 (1) or 241 (6). Furthermore, the court determined the defendants lacked notice of the loose cable for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Another plaintiff's appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

Personal InjuryFall from LadderLabor LawSummary JudgmentRoutine MaintenanceElectrical ShockPremises LiabilityAppellate DivisionWorkplace Safety
References
10
Case No. 131 AD3d 553
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2015

Assevero v. Hamilton & Church Properties, LLC

Hugo Assevero was injured falling from an unsecured ladder while working on a building renovation project owned by Hamilton & Church Properties, LLC. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law sections, and Hamilton initiated a third-party action against Castle Construction Group. The Supreme Court initially granted Hamilton's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims based on the homeowner's exemption. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the building did not qualify for the homeowner's exemption due to its mixed commercial and multi-residential use. Consequently, Hamilton's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Assevero's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and Castle's cross-motion for summary judgment on indemnification claims.

Labor LawHomeowner's ExemptionSummary Judgment MotionLadder FallConstruction AccidentPersonal Injury ClaimCorporate Property OwnershipContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationThird-Party Litigation
References
25
Case No. 03-22-00254-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2022

Kirsten Hanna, Upside Up Properties, LLC, and Upside Up Ventures, Inc. v. M. Matthew Williams David Howell Law Firm of M. Matthew Williams Leighton, Williams, Adkinson, & Brown, PLLC And Leighton, Michaux, Adkinson, & Brown, PLLC

Kirsten Hanna and two LLCs appealed from a Travis County district court's orders dismissing their professional-negligence claims against their former attorneys, M. Matthew Williams, David Howell, and their associated law firms, under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The appellants also challenged the denial of their application for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Hanna's claims and the denial of her attorney's fees request. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees to the Williams Parties, finding the evidence of reasonableness and necessity to be legally insufficient, and remanded that specific issue for redetermination.

Professional NegligenceLegal MalpracticeTexas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAttorney's FeesCommercial Speech ExemptionDTPA ExemptionAnti-Fracturing RuleSummary JudgmentJudicial Estoppel
References
56
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. 04-05-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

the City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Association, Inc. Kenneth Carey Joe Cochran William McCrae Karen Pena George Baum And Dan Vana Intervenors, Cheri Franklin Ed Berger Dick Chapman Betty Chapman George Pierce Debra Pierce Randy Gurley

This case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged the standing of a homeowners association and individual property owners to contest the City's proposed annexation of their property. The property owners filed suit seeking declaratory judgment that the annexation was unlawful due to procedural violations of Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and in violation of House Bill 585. The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellate court held that the property owners lacked standing to challenge the annexation, concluding that claims based on procedural defects must be brought via quo warranto proceedings and that H.B. 585, which prohibited the annexation, was an unconstitutional local law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the property owners' claims.

Annexation LawStandingPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory ReliefTemporary InjunctionQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeConstitutional LawSpecial LawLocal Law
References
25
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08317 [145 AD3d 506]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2016

Burgos v. Premiere Properties, Inc.

Joaquin Burgos, a building porter, sustained injuries after tripping over a tool bag on a stairway. He sued Premiere Properties, Inc., the building management company, alleging negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court denied Premiere's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial. The court found issues of fact regarding Premiere's potential liability as a statutory agent under Labor Law § 200 due to its extensive control over the construction site, as well as whether Premiere had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) were deemed abandoned.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law 200Statutory AgentSummary Judgment DenialTrip and FallSafe Place to WorkManagement Company LiabilityAppellate Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 18,471 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