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

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. 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
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

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
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

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. ADJ744923 (ANA 0385182)
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

CHARLES BUFFINGTON III vs. FACTORY MUTUAL, INFRARED TESTING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

Factory Mutual seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision finding Liberty Mutual provided coverage for Infrared Testing, Inc. during the applicant's injury period. Factory admits it sold its interest in Infrared before the cumulative injury period, arguing Liberty's coverage stipulation was a mistake. The Board dismissed Factory's petition, finding Factory lacks standing as it had no interest in the employer after August 2, 2000. The Board also indicated it would have denied the petition on the merits due to Liberty's stipulation and the elapsed premium collection period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersStipulationCoverage disputeMistake in coverageSale of interestUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundStandingAggrieved party
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1981

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Newman

Plaintiff insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, mistakenly paid $9,805.66 to defendant Ruth Newman, intended for an aggregate trust fund related to her deceased husband's workers' compensation benefits. After forwarding the correct payment to the fund, Liberty Mutual sought restitution from Newman, who refused. The Workers' Compensation Board declined to intervene, stating no recourse existed under the Workers' Compensation Law for the error. Special Term initially granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual. On appeal, the judgment was modified, with the Appellate Division agreeing it was a mistake of fact, not an overpayment of benefits, thus affirming the denial of Newman's summary judgment motion. However, the case was remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine if ordering full restitution would cause a detrimental change in Newman's position regarding her benefits, and clarified that interest and costs should not be awarded against her.

restitutionmistake of factworkers' compensationsummary judgmentunjust enrichmentdetrimental relianceequityinsurance carrieraggregate trust fundappellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baiano v. Squires

Mayrose J. Baiano and her husband sought judicial approval for a personal injury settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the workers’ compensation carrier for the County of Westchester, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which approved the settlement despite Liberty Mutual's opposition. Liberty Mutual argued that the application was untimely and lacked carrier consent. The Appellate Division found that petitioners failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in applying for approval beyond the statutory three-month period. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's order, vacated the previous approval, denied the petitioners' application, and restored the personal injury action to the trial calendar.

Workers' CompensationCompromise and SettlementPersonal InjuryJudicial ApprovalSubrogation RightsTimelinessStatutory LienAppellate ReviewCarrier ConsentDefault Judgment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bacquie v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Ena Mae Bacquie initiated an action under ERISA against her former employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and the sponsor of its Group Disability Income Policy, Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston. She contested the defendants' decision to offset her long-term disability (LTD) benefits by the amount of her Social Security Disability Income (SSDI), primarily challenging the interpretation of "same Disability" in the context of multiple medical conditions. The court, applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review due to the plan's discretionary authority granted to the administrator, found no evidence that Liberty's potential conflict of interest influenced its decision. Ultimately, the court upheld the defendants' interpretation, concluding that "Disability" refers to the inability to maintain employment rather than a specific diagnosis, and thus granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual and Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, denying Bacquie's cross-motion.

ERISADisability BenefitsLTD BenefitsSSDI BenefitsBenefit OffsetSummary JudgmentPlan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardMedical ConditionsPsychiatric Disability
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 1,310 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