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. 2024 NY Slip Op 04245
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2024

Diluglio v. Liberty Mut. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Louis A. Diluglio, Jr., an auto damage appraiser, brought an action against his employer, Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., and manager, John Austin, alleging retaliation under New York State Human Rights Law and Labor Law § 215, assault by Austin, and vicarious liability against Liberty Mutual. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the retaliation claims against Liberty Mutual, finding that the plaintiff did not engage in protected activity under the NYSHRL or identify a violated Labor Law provision. It also granted summary judgment on the vicarious liability claim, concluding that Austin's alleged tortious conduct was not within the scope of his employment. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the assault claim, as the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Austin's physical conduct did not place the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact.

RetaliationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Law § 215AssaultVicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDiscriminatory PracticesProtected Activity
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

A claimant, a member of the Buffalo Destroyers football team, was injured and filed a workers' compensation claim with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Liberty Mutual denied coverage, arguing the claimant was not an employee of its insured, Source One Group, and that the policy could not cover a New York entity. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found the claimant a dual employee, then a special employee of the Destroyers and a general employee of Source One, entitling him to coverage. The court determined that while the claimant was not a de facto employee of Source One, Liberty Mutual was estopped from denying coverage due to its conduct, including issuing a certificate of insurance and accepting premiums. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's decision, holding Liberty Mutual responsible for the claimant's workers' compensation benefits.

Insurance Coverage DisputeEmployer LiabilityProfessional Employee OrganizationSpecial Employment DoctrineEstoppel in InsuranceAssigned-Risk Insurance PolicySports Athlete InjuryAppellate DecisionPayroll Audit DisputeCertificate of Insurance Validity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2006

Campoverde v. Liberty, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a plaintiff's Labor Law claim stemming from decontamination work after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The initial order granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment against the appellant, 114 Liberty Street Condominium, and denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this decision. It denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and instead granted the appellant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against 114 Liberty Street Condominium. The court reasoned that the City of New York's Department of Environmental Protection, not the building owner, was in charge of the cleanup, thus precluding owner liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6).

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 246Owner liabilitySeptember 11 AttacksDecontamination workNew York Supreme CourtAppellate DivisionThird-party complaint
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08951 [178 AD3d 525]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of a petition by Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, which sought to vacate an arbitration award denying their claim. Global Liberty had argued that workers' compensation benefits were available to the assignor, Ramon Martinez, and thus their denial of the no-fault insurance claim to North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC (Martinez's assignee) was proper. The court found that Global Liberty failed to prove Martinez was injured in the course of his employment. The order was modified to remand the matter for a determination of attorneys' fees owed to North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC, including those for the appeal.

Insurance DenialNo-Fault BenefitsArbitration AwardAttorneys' FeesWorkers' Compensation CoverageEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewRemandBurden of ProofAssignor
References
4
Case No. 698 F.Supp. 452
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1988

Tunis v. Corning Glass Works

Catherine Tunis, a process engineer at Corning Glass, filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed a hostile work environment due to pinup photographs, gender-based language, and catcalls, and that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints and an EEOC filing. The court found that the employer took prompt and reasonable remedial action regarding the hostile environment claims. Additionally, the court determined that Tunis failed to demonstrate that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons provided by Corning Glass for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, all of Tunis's claims were dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentGender BiasWrongful TerminationFederal Lawsuit
References
12
Case No. 2018-962 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2019

Acupuncture Now, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins.

This case involves an appeal by Global Liberty Insurance from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County. The Civil Court had denied the insurer's cross motion for summary judgment in an action brought by Acupuncture Now, P.C., as assignee of Cleotilde Lozano, to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision. It found that Global Liberty Insurance had provided sufficient proof of timely mailing of denial of claim forms and had fully paid for the services according to the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture. Consequently, the Appellate Term granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, as the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTimely MailingDenial of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAcupuncture ServicesInsurance LawFirst-Party BenefitsCivil Court Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2007

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania

This case concerns an appeal regarding an insurance dispute between Liberty Mutual (excess insurer) and AIG (primary insurer) over a $1.5 million settlement payment in a personal injury action. The underlying action involved an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation, a subcontractor, suing the project's owner and construction manager under the Labor Law. AIG, General's primary insurer, had refused to participate in the defense or settlement. The Supreme Court's order, which limited plaintiff's recovery to $500,000, was modified on appeal. The appellate court increased AIG's potential liability limit to $1,000,000, pending a determination of whether the employee sustained a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court affirmed that AIG, as a primary insurer, must exhaust its coverage before Liberty's excess coverage is implicated and is not entitled to apportionment with the excess insurer.

Insurance Coverage DisputeExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceIndemnificationSubrogationWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentPolicy LimitsApportionment of Liability
References
6
Case No. 2015-516 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins.

The case "Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins." involved an appeal by Healthway Medical Care, P.C. against Global Liberty Insurance concerning assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff appealed an order from the Civil Court, Queens County, which denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on certain causes of action (third through tenth) and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss those same causes of action. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the Civil Court's order by denying the branches of the defendant's cross-motion seeking summary judgment to dismiss the third through tenth causes of action. The court found the defendant failed to establish that fees exceeded workers' compensation schedules or that independent medical examinations (IMEs) were properly scheduled. However, the plaintiff was not granted summary judgment either, as they failed to demonstrate that the claims were not timely denied or that the denials were without merit. The order was affirmed as modified.

No-fault benefitssummary judgmentindependent medical examinationIME schedulingfee scheduleworkers' compensationappellate reviewcivil proceduremedical billingassigned claims
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshel v. AFW Fabric Corp.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, alleging violations of federal securities laws related to a tender offer and merger aimed at returning Concord Fabrics, Inc. to private ownership. The court, referring to prior decisions and Supreme Court precedent like Santa Fe Indus., Inc. v. Green and Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, determined that the fraud allegations were not cognizable under federal securities laws (Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5, 13, and 14 of the Exchange Act). This was due to the absence of material misrepresentations or non-disclosures and the availability of state appraisal remedies. Consequently, the federal claims were deemed legally insufficient, leading the court to decline jurisdiction over any pendent state law claims. The defendants' motion to dismiss was therefore granted.

Federal Securities LawCorporate MergerTender OfferFraud AllegationsRule 10b-5Section 10(b) Securities Exchange ActState Appraisal RemedySubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissGoing Private Transaction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simon v. Safelite Glass Corp.

Plaintiff Matthew Simon sued Safelite Glass Corporation for age discrimination under the ADEA and NYSHRL. Simon had previously applied for and received Social Security Disability Benefits, stating he was unable to work due to a degenerative eye condition. Despite this, his discrimination lawsuit claimed he was fully qualified for his former position. The court granted Safelite's renewed motion for summary judgment, applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel to prevent Simon from asserting inconsistent positions. The decision emphasized the importance of the sanctity of the oath and the integrity of the judicial process, concluding that Simon could not establish a prima facie case. Additionally, the court imposed sanctions on Simon's attorney for failing to disclose the disability benefits during discovery.

Age DiscriminationJudicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentSocial Security Disability BenefitsInconsistent PositionsFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSanctionsFailure to DiscloseRehabilitation ActADEA
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 773 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