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 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. 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
Aug 16, 1982

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Michigan Mutual Insurance

Hartford, an excess insurer, initiated a lawsuit against primary insurer Michigan Mutual, D.A.L. Construction, and a law firm, Montfort, Healy, McGuire and Salley, seeking to recover a $400,000 settlement portion it paid in an underlying construction site explosion case. The underlying action involved injured parties (the Gobins) who sued entities L.A.D. Associates and DeFoe Corporation, all of whom, along with D.A.L. (Mr. Gobin's employer), were insured by both Michigan Mutual and Hartford. Hartford's claim was predicated on D.A.L.'s potential Dole v Dow Chem. Co. contribution liability, arguing Michigan Mutual or the attorneys should have impleaded D.A.L. in the original suit. Justice Silverman, in a dissenting opinion, argued that an insurer cannot subrogate against its own insured, thus precluding Hartford's claim against D.A.L. and justifying Michigan Mutual's failure to implead. However, the appellate court's final order modified the appealed decision by denying motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, thereby reinstating Hartford's complaint in its individual capacity against Michigan Mutual and Montfort, Healy.

SubrogationExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceContributionIndemnificationSummary JudgmentImpleaderWorkers' Compensation ExclusionInsurer vs. InsuredRelated Corporations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doherty v. Barco Auto Leasing Co.

This case concerns an appeal challenging an order that vacated two intercompany arbitration awards. The dispute originated from a 1984 accident involving Andrew Doherty, whose employer was insured by Liberty Mutual for workers' compensation and automobile liability, and a vehicle insured by State Farm. After a jury found defendants 80% liable, Liberty Mutual pursued arbitration to recover paid workers' compensation and no-fault benefits, receiving an 80% award. State Farm successfully applied to the Supreme Court to vacate these awards, arguing a prior settlement stipulation waived Liberty Mutual's rights. The appellate court reversed, holding that Insurance Law § 5105 provides mandatory arbitration as the sole remedy for loss transfer, not a lien, and the stipulation did not explicitly waive this right. Consequently, the arbitration awards were confirmed, as State Farm failed to prove misconduct.

Arbitration AwardsInsurance Law § 5105Loss Transfer ClaimsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNo-Fault BenefitsStipulation of SettlementWaiver of RightsIntercompany ArbitrationAppellate ReviewCPLR 7511
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Thalle Construction Co.

Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company sued defendant Thalle Construction Company, Inc., alleging breach of contract for refusal to pay a retrospective premium adjustment under a general commercial liability insurance policy. Defendant Thalle argued that Liberty Mutual's improper settlement of the 'McMichael Claim' constituted a breach of the implied duty of good faith and nonperformance of a condition precedent, excusing its payment obligations. Thalle claimed Liberty Mutual conducted a careless investigation and settled excessively. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge William C. Conner, granted Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment and denied Thalle's cross-motion. The court found no recognized cause of action or defense under New York law for a breach of implied good faith regarding increased retrospective premiums based on an insurer's investigation or settlement methods. The court distinguished this from 'bad-faith' doctrines in settlement offers within policy limits, noting that in retrospective premium cases, it is in the insurer's best interest to minimize costs.

Retrospective PremiumCommercial General LiabilityBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentImplied Duty of Good Faith and Fair DealingInsurance PolicySettlement DisputeInvestigation PracticesCondition PrecedentNew York Law
References
20
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04774 [151 AD3d 504]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2017

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. U.S. Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute where Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Artimus Construction Corp., Inc., as subrogees, sought coverage from U.S. Underwriters Insurance Company. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from relitigating insurance coverage issues because these matters had been decided in a prior declaratory judgment action. The majority concluded that Nationwide's subrogor, Artimus, and Artimus's subrogor, Armadillo, had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the coverage issues previously. Furthermore, the court held that the doctrine of res judicata also barred the claims, applying a transactional analysis which dictates that all claims arising from the same transaction that could have been raised in prior litigation are precluded.

Insurance CoverageSubrogationCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentPersonal Injury ActionEmployer Liability ExclusionLate Notice of ClaimPrivity
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Graphic Arts Mutual, an automobile liability insurer, and Bakers Mutual, a workers' compensation carrier, over which policy covers an employer's derivative liability in a third-party personal injury action. An employee of Chimes Cake Co. was injured by a co-employee's negligence, leading to a third-party claim against the employer under the Dole-Dow doctrine. Graphic disclaimed responsibility, citing policy exclusions for employee bodily injury and workers' compensation obligations. The court affirmed that Graphic's automobile policy covered the employer's vicarious liability to a third-party tort-feasor, as this obligation did not fall within the stated exclusions. The decision emphasizes a functional analysis of separate insurance lines, concluding that automobile liability should cover obligations arising from vehicle operation.

Insurance disputeAutomobile liabilityWorkers' compensationThird-party actionDeclaratory judgmentEmployer's liabilityVicarious liabilityDole-Dow doctrinePolicy exclusionsCo-employee negligence
References
4
Case No. 6:09-CV-853
Regular Panel Decision

Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.

This case details a dispute between Utica Mutual Insurance Company (Utica) and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (FFIC) concerning reinsurance contracts, with Utica seeking substantial damages for alleged breach of contract and bad faith. FFIC counterclaimed for rescission of the reinsurance agreements. A central contention revolves around whether Utica's primary liability policies issued to Goulds from 1966-1972 contained aggregate limits for bodily injury, a condition critical to triggering FFIC's reinsurance obligations. The court dismissed Utica's bad faith claim (Count II) and its request for declaratory relief (Count III) but denied all other motions for summary judgment by both parties, including those regarding the 'follow the settlement' doctrine, FFIC's rescission counterclaim, and the timeliness of notice. Consequently, the core breach of contract claim (Count I) and FFIC's counterclaims for rescission are slated to proceed to trial.

Reinsurance DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentFollow the Settlement DoctrineAggregate LimitsBad Faith ClaimRescissionNotice of ClaimInsurance LawAsbestos Claims
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2002

State Insurance Fund v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

The New York State Insurance Fund (SIF), acting on its own behalf and for its subrogee Kaback Enterprises, Inc., sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. SIF sought a declaratory judgment that Liberty Mutual must indemnify Kaback and contribute one million dollars to a two-million-dollar settlement SIF made on Kaback's behalf. This settlement stemmed from an accident involving Kaback employee Steven Flamio in 1991. The core dispute involves whether Liberty Mutual's general commercial liability policy covers the settlement, given an employee exclusion, and questions of timely notice and disclaimer of coverage. Both parties moved for summary judgment, but the court found numerous disputed material facts, including the scope of claims covered by the settlement, timely notice to Liberty Mutual, and the timeliness of Liberty Mutual's disclaimer. The court therefore denied both motions for summary judgment, directing the parties to a trial scheduling/settlement conference.

Summary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee ExclusionIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationSubrogationTimely NoticeDisclaimer of CoverageMaterial Issues of Fact
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Big Yank Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance (In Re Water Valley Finishing, Inc.)

This case is an appeal from an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that a Kentucky district court's award of sanctions against Big Yank Corporation, in the form of attorney's fees, was discharged in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1). Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, the appellant, challenged this ruling, arguing the claim did not arise until after the confirmation of Big Yank's reorganization plan. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, finding that the possibility of the sanctions claim was within the contemplation of the parties prior to the bankruptcy petition and plan confirmation, thus making it a pre-petition claim discharged by the plan.

Bankruptcy AppealSanctions DischargeAttorney's FeesChapter 11 ReorganizationClaim AccrualPre-petition ClaimContingent ClaimUnmatured ClaimBad Faith LitigationFederal Bankruptcy Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 14,951 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