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
Feb 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodward v. Raymond James Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff John Woodward filed a class action complaint alleging that Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) and its executives engaged in a scheme to defraud shareholders by making material misrepresentations about the adequacy of loan loss reserves for its subsidiary, Raymond James Bank. The complaint detailed an alleged fraudulent scheme involving purposeful underfunding of loan loss reserves, concealment of risky lending practices, and misrepresentation of management styles and SEC filings. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Section 10(b) claim lacked actionable misrepresentations, adequate scienter, and loss causation, and that the Section 20(a) claims lacked a primary violation. The court found that most alleged misrepresentations were non-actionable puffery or lacked specificity, with only statements regarding independent underwriting being considered actionable. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to plead scienter with the required particularity, as most allegations were common corporate motives or lacked specific supporting facts. Consequently, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPleading StandardsPSLRARule 9(b)ScienterMaterial MisrepresentationLoan Loss ReservesFinancial Institutions
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tahini Investments, Ltd. v. Bobrowsky

Plaintiff appealed two orders concerning a purchase-money mortgage and alleged misrepresentation during the sale of a 93-acre farm. Defendant, the seller, had represented the property as a horse farm, but industrial waste drums were later discovered. Plaintiff claimed defendant knew of the dumping site and failed to disclose it, constituting actionable misrepresentation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, denying knowledge and citing a disclaimer clause in the contract. The appellate court found triable issues of fact, stating that concealment of material facts can be misrepresentation, and a disclaimer does not always preclude claims if facts are peculiarly within the seller's knowledge. The court reversed the summary judgment, denying defendant’s motion and granting plaintiff’s motion to depose a nonparty witness.

MisrepresentationReal Estate SaleProperty DisclosureSummary Judgment ReversalMaterial Fact ConcealmentDisclaimer ClausePeculiar Knowledge DoctrineDeposition of Nonparty WitnessIndustrial Waste DiscoveryDutchess County Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp.

The plaintiffs, Candace Curtis and Heather Curtis, appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The first order denied their motion to amend the complaint to add fraud-based causes of action, and the second denied their motion for leave to reargue. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order denying reargument, as such orders are not appealable. However, the court modified the August 3, 2001, order by granting infant plaintiff Candace Curtis leave to assert causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. This decision was based on the principle that fraud can exist even when misrepresentations are made to a third party (the mother) but result in injury to the plaintiff (the infant). The court affirmed the denial of the motion to amend for Heather Curtis on statute of limitations grounds related to her negligence claims.

Personal InjuryFraudulent MisrepresentationConstructive FraudFraudulent ConcealmentNegligent MisrepresentationPrenatal InjuriesFetusEmployer LiabilityStatute of LimitationsAmendment of Complaint
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Admiral Insurance v. Joy Contractors, Inc.

This case addresses an insurance coverage dispute arising from a tower crane collapse during construction. Plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company, an excess insurer, denied coverage to defendant Joy Contractors, Inc., the crane operator, and several additional insureds, citing a 'residential construction activities' exclusion and Joy’s alleged misrepresentations in its underwriting application. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division had issued differing rulings on these key issues, particularly concerning the applicability of the exclusion and whether alleged misrepresentations by a named insured could affect additional insureds' coverage. The Court of Appeals found the Appellate Division erred in its assessment of evidence regarding the residential construction exclusion and in its application of precedent concerning additional insureds. Consequently, the higher court reinstated Admiral's claims for rescission, reformation, and declarations related to Joy's misrepresentations against all defendants, while affirming the ambiguity of an LLC exclusion.

Insurance CoverageCrane CollapseExcess PolicyCGL PolicyResidential Construction ExclusionMaterial MisrepresentationAdditional InsuredsRescissionReformationAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01236 [158 AD3d 1036]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2018

Vestal v. Pontillo

Plaintiff Erin P. Vestal sued Michael C. Pontillo, her deceased husband's financial advisor, and his alleged employers, Hudson Heritage Group, Inc. and Hudson Heritage Capital Management, Inc., after ReliaStar Life Insurance Company denied a $5 million policy claim. ReliaStar rescinded the policy due to the decedent's material misrepresentations on a medical questionnaire regarding substance abuse. The Supreme Court partially denied the defendants' motions to dismiss various claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of dismissal for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, finding a duty of care towards plaintiff as an intended beneficiary. However, the Court reversed the denial of dismissal for negligent misrepresentation, concealment, and fraud claims, concluding that plaintiff, an attorney, could not reasonably rely on Pontillo's actions given the policy terms and her ability to review them. The dismissal of the breach of contract claim was affirmed, as plaintiff stood in the shoes of the decedent, whose misrepresentations imperiled the policy.

Insurance PolicyLife InsuranceMaterial MisrepresentationBreach of Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationFraudDismissal MotionAppellate ReviewThird-Party Beneficiary
References
33
Case No. ADJ292109 (LAO 0863163)
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

Erica Brumfield vs. County of Los Angeles, Department of Social Services, York Risk Services

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's dismissal order. The dismissal was based on a defendant's petition containing material misrepresentations and improper service on the unrepresented applicant. Crucially, the defendant failed to properly serve notice of dismissal proceedings, and the applicant was actively pursuing her claim as evidenced by her communications with adjusters and medical providers. Therefore, the dismissal order is void *ab initio* due to lack of due process and material misrepresentations.

Amended Petition to Set Aside DismissalPetition to Dismiss Based On Lack of Prosecutionvoid ab initiomaterial misrepresentationPetition for Reconsiderationrescind the Orderindustrial injuryunrepresentedin propria personamisrepresentation of facts
References
2
Case No. ADJ7661375
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

JOSE CERVANTES vs. TOTAL RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant PTS after their lien was dismissed for failure to prove timely payment of the activation fee. The Board dismissed TCMG's petition for reconsideration because they did not file a lien and their petition contained numerous misrepresentations and procedural violations. The Board also issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $2,000 against Innovative Medical Management, the representative for both lien claimants, due to their bad faith actions and misrepresentations.

Lien activation feeProof of prior paymentSanctionsLabor Code Section 4903.06Labor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Due processMisrepresentation of factsStanding to appealEAMS
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 401 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