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

Rose v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Joseph Rose (plaintiff) filed a class action against Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company and Northwestern Mutual Investment Securities LLC (defendants), alleging minimum wage and overtime violations under New York Labor Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Rose was an independent contractor and thus exempt from state labor laws, and that there was no relationship with NMIS. The court found that Rose was an independent contractor, not an employee, based on factors such as his contract designation, lack of fixed work schedule or supervision by Northwestern Mutual, and absence of fringe benefits or hourly wages. The court also determined there was no relationship between Rose and NMIS. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and all of plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Independent Contractor StatusEmployment LawSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawMinimum WageOvertime ViolationsInsurance AgentsClass ActionControl TestFringe Benefits

References

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

Case No. 04-24-00386-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 26, 2025

In Re Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Judy Bond, and Allstate County Mutual Insurance v. the State of Texas

Edward Santos filed a lawsuit against Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Judy Bond, and Allstate County Mutual Insurance, alleging liability for his injuries being compensated through workers' compensation benefits, thereby limiting liability under other coverages. Texas Mutual and Bond challenged the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction, arguing that the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation (the Division) had exclusive jurisdiction over Santos's claims. The Fourth Court of Appeals found that Santos's claims against Texas Mutual and Bond, predicated on the improper investigation, handling, or settlement of his workers' compensation claim, fell within the Division's exclusive jurisdiction, and he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Consequently, the Court conditionally granted the petition for a writ of mandamus for Texas Mutual and Bond, directing the trial court to dismiss claims against them. However, the Court denied Allstate's petition, as Santos's claims against Allstate involved a liability claim against a non-workers' compensation carrier, which did not abrogate the Division's exclusive jurisdiction by re-litigating the course and scope of employment question.

MandamusWorkers' CompensationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionInsurance CodeDeceptive Trade Practices ActFraudConspiracyEmployer Liability

References

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

Case No. Court File No. 2

Regular Panel Decision

Swafford v. Forestry Mutual Insurance

Plaintiff Danny Swafford, operating Swafford Farms, held a workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance policy with Defendant Forestry Mutual Insurance Company. An underlying complaint was filed against Swafford by Albert Wayne Capshaw, an alleged independent contractor, for injuries sustained. Swafford then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that Forestry Mutual had a duty to defend him in the Capshaw complaint. Forestry Mutual moved for summary judgment, arguing its policy only covered employees, not independent contractors, and thus it had no duty to defend. The Court, applying Tennessee law, found no ambiguity in the policy's terms or the allegations of the Capshaw complaint regarding Capshaw's status. Consequently, the Court granted Forestry Mutual's motion for summary judgment, concluding that no duty to defend existed.

Workers' Compensation PolicyDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorEmployer LiabilityDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeContract InterpretationTennessee LawSixth Circuit

References

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

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

Case No. 03-04-00105-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 03, 2006

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Texas Department of Insurance and Jose Montemayor, as Commissioner of Insurance Amber, Inc., Champagne-Webber, Inc. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. And Royal Seating Corp.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and its affiliates appealed a district court judgment requiring them to issue rebates to workers' compensation policyholders for 1991 and 1992 surpluses. The appellants argued that a rule from the Texas Department of Insurance, which mandated these pass-throughs, unconstitutionally impaired their contractual rights, deprived them of property without due process, and constituted an impermissible retroactive law. The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the Department's rule was a valid exercise of legislative power, served a legitimate public purpose by preventing insurers from retaining unforeseen windfalls, and did not violate constitutional prohibitions regarding retroactive legislation, contract impairment, or due process rights.

Insurance LawWorkers' Compensation InsuranceRetrospective Rating PlanInsurance RegulationConstitutional ChallengesContractual ObligationsDue ProcessRetroactive LegislationAppellate Court DecisionTexas Department of Insurance

References

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

Case No. 03-18-00532-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 23, 2019

Pamela Johnson v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

Pamela Johnson appeals a no-evidence summary judgment granted in favor of Texas Mutual Insurance Company, stemming from a Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) decision. Johnson had sustained a work-related injury, but disputed the extent of her injuries (including Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and tendinosis/tendinitis), the date of her maximum medical improvement (MMI), and her impairment rating. The DWC administrative law judge and Appeals Panel made findings that were later challenged by Johnson in district court. The district court consolidated Johnson's two petitions for judicial review, sustained Texas Mutual's objections to Johnson's summary-judgment evidence, and subsequently granted Texas Mutual's no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Johnson, appearing pro se, had waived her evidentiary issue by failing to adequately brief it with legal authority.

Workers' Compensation AppealSummary Judgment ReviewNo-Evidence MotionEvidentiary ExclusionMedical ImprovementImpairment RatingComplex Regional Pain SyndromeLeft Ankle InjuryPro Se LitigationDWC Decision

References

Showing 1-10 of 18,332 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Rose v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Independent Contractor StatusEmployment LawSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawMinimum WageOvertime ViolationsInsurance AgentsClass ActionControl TestFringe Benefits

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 02, 1981

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Newman

restitutionmistake of factworkers' compensationsummary judgmentunjust enrichmentdetrimental relianceequityinsurance carrieraggregate trust fundappellate review

References

Case No. 04-24-00386-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 26, 2025

In Re Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Judy Bond, and Allstate County Mutual Insurance v. the State of Texas

MandamusWorkers' CompensationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionInsurance CodeDeceptive Trade Practices ActFraudConspiracyEmployer Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual Insurance

Insurance disputeAutomobile liabilityWorkers' compensationThird-party actionDeclaratory judgmentEmployer's liabilityVicarious liabilityDole-Dow doctrinePolicy exclusionsCo-employee negligence

References

Case No. Court File No. 2

Regular Panel Decision

Swafford v. Forestry Mutual Insurance

Workers' Compensation PolicyDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorEmployer LiabilityDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeContract InterpretationTennessee LawSixth Circuit

References

Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04245

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 21, 2024

Diluglio v. Liberty Mut. Group, Inc.

RetaliationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Law § 215AssaultVicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDiscriminatory PracticesProtected Activity

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 16, 1982

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Michigan Mutual Insurance

SubrogationExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceContributionIndemnificationSummary JudgmentImpleaderWorkers' Compensation ExclusionInsurer vs. InsuredRelated Corporations

References

Case No. 03-04-00105-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 03, 2006

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Texas Department of Insurance and Jose Montemayor, as Commissioner of Insurance Amber, Inc., Champagne-Webber, Inc. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. And Royal Seating Corp.

References

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

References

Case No. 03-18-00532-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 23, 2019

Pamela Johnson v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

References

Showing 1-10 of 18,332 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.