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

Hannah v. American Republic Insurance

Phil Hannah filed an action against American Republic Insurance Company (ARIC), alleging interference with his ERISA rights under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 due to employment termination, and wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Hannah’s employment with Americare, an ARIC subsidiary, was terminated in August 2004, after which he signed a Separation Agreement and Release. The Court granted ARIC’s motion for summary judgment on the ERISA § 510 claim, finding the Release valid and rejecting Hannah’s argument of economic duress. For the ERISA § 502 claim, the Court also ruled in favor of ARIC, determining that Hannah failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Plan, and found his futility and waiver arguments to be without merit. Consequently, the Court granted ARIC’s motion for entry of judgment on the benefits claim, denied Hannah’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the entire case with judgment entered in favor of the Defendant.

ERISASummary JudgmentEmployee Benefits PlanWrongful TerminationAdministrative RemediesEconomic DuressRelease AgreementWaiver of ClaimsFutility DoctrineDeferred Compensation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2004

Maraia v. Valentine

The plaintiffs appealed from an order vacating a prior award of summary judgment in their favor and from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, dismissing their complaint in an action for breach of contract. The defendant, an electrical contractor, was accused by Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, of operating a nonunion business and failing to comply with union bylaws regarding the timely filing of charges. The Supreme Court properly vacated the summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact concerning compliance with the union's constitution. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order as direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment, but affirmed the final judgment, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentJury VerdictUnion BylawsAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor DisputeDismissal of ComplaintTriable Issue of FactInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearl v. Sam Greco Construction Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Monahan & Loughlin, Inc. (M & L), suffered serious injuries after sliding off a roof at a construction site while attempting to access safety equipment. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Sam Greco Construction, Inc., and other entities, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. However, on appeal, the court determined that the safety equipment provided was improperly stored and not adequately placed, constituting a statutory violation that proximately caused the plaintiff's fall. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff's actions could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries, nor did the recalcitrant worker doctrine apply. The judgment was modified, denying the defendants' motion and granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leaving only the determination of damages.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative NegligenceRecalcitrant Worker DoctrineRoofingFall from Height
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lim Kwock Soon v. Brownell

This case involves a prior judgment from 1958 which declared Lim Kwock Soon and Lim Kwock Min as U.S. nationals and citizens, following a reversal and remand by the Court of Appeals due to a finding of mistake by the district court. In 1966, a stipulation was filed by the plaintiffs, acknowledging that a fraud was perpetrated upon the court in the original case and agreeing to vacate the 1958 judgment and dismiss their petition with prejudice. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to formally vacate the judgment and enter a new judgment in accordance with this stipulation. However, the District Judge denied this motion, expressing serious doubt about the court's authority to alter a Court of Appeals' order without further direction and considering the case closed. The judge also requested clarification on the fact-finding authority of a district judge in non-jury cases.

FraudVacating JudgmentMotion DeniedDistrict Court AuthorityAppellate ReviewStipulationCitizenshipNationalsCredibility of WitnessesFact-Finding
References
37
Case No. 07-19-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2021

Michelle Latray as Receiver of the Assets of Clifton Boatright for the Benefit of Judgment Creditors W.L. Roberts, Dana Roberts, Erin Leigh Roberts, and Katelyn Robert Gonzales v. Colony Insurance Company D/B/A Colony Specialty Insurance Co.

Michelle Latray, acting as a receiver for judgment creditors of Clifton Boatright, appealed a summary judgment ruling which found Colony Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify Boatright. Latray argued the trial court erred because Colony had a duty to defend and indemnify Boatright for damages caused by dumping debris and damaging fences, asserting the acts were negligent rather than intentional, or at least the fence damage was. The Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, denied Latray's motion for rehearing. It affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Boatright's act of dumping debris was intentional, thus not an 'occurrence' covered by the policy. Although the damage to fencing was negligent, the policy's auto exclusion applied to the use of the dump truck and trailer, negating Colony's duty to defend or indemnify for those damages as well.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentAuto ExclusionIntentional TortsNegligenceProperty DamageDebris DumpingReceiver
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

XL Specialty Insurance v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.

This memorandum opinion addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case originating from an explosion that killed two workers, one each from Kiewit Offshore Services, LTD (general contractor) and R.B.T. Welders, Inc. (subcontractor). Relatives of the deceased workers filed a negligence lawsuit. XL Specialty Insurance Company, RBT's insurer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Kiewit, denying a duty to defend or indemnify. Kiewit, in turn, sought indemnification from RBT and coverage from XL. The Court granted Kiewit's motion for summary judgment in part, holding RBT must indemnify Kiewit for a $4 million settlement payment, specific attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest, finding Kiewit faced potential liability and the settlement was reasonable. The Court denied Kiewit's claim for undocumented expenses and denied XL's motion for summary judgment asserting statutory employer and borrowed servant defenses under workers' compensation laws for Kiewit, concluding these defenses were not applicable.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityBorrowed Servant DoctrineStatutory EmployerNegligence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1982

Benjamin v. City of New York

Plaintiffs James Corey Benjamin, Kevin Wiggins, Dorothy Benjamin, June Wiggins, and Robert Wiggins sought damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiffs James, Kevin, and Robert on a city-owned vacant lot in 1974. The infants were severely burned when another youth ignited a flammable substance near a pipe. A jury initially awarded judgments to the plaintiffs and their parents. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Bronx County, reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the defendant, The City, was not negligent, as the intervening acts of the unidentified youth were the proximate cause of the injuries, and the lot's condition was merely the location, not the cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseVacant LotCity LiabilityJury Verdict ReversalComplaint DismissalForeseeabilityInfant InjuriesExplosion Accident
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1991

People v. Hurd

The Supreme Court of New York County rendered a judgment on May 7, 1991, convicting the defendant of murder in the second degree, with a sentence of 22 years to life. This judgment was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The appellate court determined that any potential prejudice arising from the prosecutor's improper statement during summation regarding the voluntariness of the defendant's confession was effectively cured by the trial court's actions. These actions included sustaining the defendant's objection, providing immediate curative instructions, and delivering an extensive charge on confession voluntariness. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecutor's statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, which encompassed medical evidence, eyewitness testimony from the victim's granddaughter, and the defendant's own statements.

MurderSecond Degree MurderJury TrialVideotaped ConfessionConfession VoluntarinessProsecutorial MisconductHarmless ErrorCurative InstructionsOverwhelming EvidenceAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Welsh v. Universal Fasteners, Inc.

John Welsh, an employee of Universal Fasteners, Inc., reported a right shoulder injury in 1996. His medical benefits claim, initially paid by Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Company, was later denied, leading Welsh to seek assistance from the Tennessee Department of Labor. A claims specialist initially supported his claim but later reversed, denying benefits and advising him of the one-year statute of limitations. Welsh subsequently filed suit in February 1998, arguing that the statute of limitations was suspended during the Department of Labor's review period. The court reversed the summary judgment against Welsh, concluding that the statute of limitations was indeed tolled from his request for assistance until the final denial, making summary judgment inappropriate. The case was remanded to the chancery court for a full hearing.

Statute of LimitationsTollingMedical BenefitsClaims SpecialistDepartment of LaborSummary JudgmentAppealHickman CountyRepetitive Strain InjuryShoulder Injury
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 17,052 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