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

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keefe v. General Accident Insurance

Plaintiff Violet O'Keefe initiated an action against General Accident Insurance Company, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation based on age and sex, violating Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. O'Keefe claimed a discriminatory work environment and unlawful termination following her refusal of a proposed job transfer. The defendant argued O'Keefe's performance was poor and the transfer was a lateral move. The District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the federal discrimination and retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether General Accident's reasons for termination were pretextual. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law claims, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hennings v. Town of Hempstead

Claimant, a parks department laborer, was injured in a motorcycle accident while returning from lunch. He had used his motorcycle to travel to work and then left it to go to lunch in a coworker's car. Upon returning, he crashed his motorcycle on a public road. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed his claim, finding that he was on his lunch hour and not performing any work duties when the accident occurred. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

Workers' CompensationMotorcycle AccidentCourse of EmploymentLunch Break InjuryAffirmed DecisionBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewLaborerParks DepartmentPersonal Commute
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1992

National General Insurance v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

This case concerns a declaratory judgment action regarding insurance coverage following a fatal airplane crash. Warren Geddes, president of American Investor Services, Inc. (AIS), was piloting a plane carrying Gary Conway, an AIS employee, when it crashed, killing both. National General Insurance Company, insurer of the plane owner, sought for Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, AIS's workers' compensation insurer, to defend and indemnify AIS and Geddes' Estate in a wrongful death action. Hartford denied coverage for Geddes' Estate, arguing he was not a named or additional insured under their policy. The court modified the initial judgment, declaring that Hartford has no duty to defend or indemnify the Estate of Geddes, while otherwise affirming the judgment.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentWrongful DeathDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyNamed InsuredAdditional InsuredWorkers' Compensation PolicyAirplane CrashEstate Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance

This case involves a dispute between two insurance companies, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (excess insurer) and Commercial Union Insurance Company (primary insurer), concerning liability for an injury claim. Michael Jutt, an employee of Minuteman Press International, Inc., was injured while on a Minuteman-owned boat. Commercial Union, the primary insurer, denied coverage and refused to defend Minuteman, leading Hartford, the excess insurer, to provide defense and settle Jutt's claim for $135,000. Hartford subsequently sued Commercial Union for breach of fiduciary duty. The District Court affirmed Hartford's standing to sue, recognizing a direct fiduciary duty owed by a primary insurer to an excess insurer, and found that the "paid employees" exclusion in Commercial Union's policy was ambiguous. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Hartford, ordering Commercial Union to pay $135,000 plus interest.

Insurance LawExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceFiduciary DutyEquitable SubrogationPolicy ExclusionAmbiguous Contract TermDeclaratory Judgment ActionStanding to SueMarine Insurance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Coastal Dry Dock & Repair Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. (insurer) against Coastal Dry Dock and Repair Corp. (insured) regarding unpaid retrospective premiums on a workers' compensation policy. The insurer sought to recover additional premiums calculated based on the insured's loss record, as stipulated by a 'Retrospective Premium Endorsement.' The defendant raised multiple defenses and counterclaims, alleging improper calculations, misrepresentation, and mishandling of claims. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the defendant's opposition, primarily an attorney's affidavit lacking personal knowledge, was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court found the defendant's defenses and counterclaims legally insufficient, affirming the insurer's contractual right to negotiate and settle claims.

Workers' Compensation PolicyRetrospective PremiumSummary JudgmentContract DisputeInsurance LawAppellate ReviewAffidavit SufficiencyEvidentiary FactsClaims SettlementPolicy Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lawrence United Corp.

The Monroe Group, Inc. (Monroe) sought to compel General Accident Insurance Company of America (General Accident) to release commissions owed from a court-approved sale of the Debtor's assets. The Debtor, a former agent for General Accident, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and its Rochester office assets were sold to Monroe 'free and clear of all liens and other interests.' General Accident withheld commissions, arguing a right of recoupment for prepetition premiums owed by the Debtor, which it contended was not an 'interest' extinguished by the sale order. The court determined it had 'core' jurisdiction over the dispute, finding that General Accident's alleged right of recoupment was not an 'interest' under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f) and could not be asserted against postpetition commissions to recover prepetition premiums. Consequently, the court granted Monroe's motion, compelling General Accident to release the commissions.

Bankruptcy Court JurisdictionChapter 11 BankruptcyAsset SalesRecoupment RightsInsurance CommissionsDebtor-in-PossessionSecured ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsSale Free and Clear of InterestsPostpetition vs. Prepetition Debts
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zygler v. Tenzer Coat Co.

An employer and carrier appealed a disability award granted to a claimant who suffered a cerebral vascular episode after an oral quarrel with his foreman over work distribution. The Workers' Compensation Board had previously determined this constituted an accident, reversing a Referee's finding of no accident. The court, however, found that an argument without physical violence, even if it leads to a vascular incident, does not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, especially when such arguments are common in piece work environments. Citing relevant precedents involving similar emotional strain without physical exertion leading to heart attacks or vascular incidents, the court concluded that a finding of accident could not be sustained. Consequently, the award was reversed, and the claim was dismissed, with costs awarded to the appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationAccident DefinitionCerebral Vascular EpisodeEmotional StrainOral QuarrelDisability AwardEmployer LiabilityCarrier LiabilityPiece WorkPre-existing Condition
References
3
Case No. ADJ7039301
Regular
Mar 16, 2011

ROBLY HART vs. LA JOLLA PACIFIC/DRR NEFF & ASSOCIATES, OAKS RIVER INSURANCE/BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case concerns Robly Hart's workers' compensation claim for an injury sustained in a motorcycle accident. The applicant was a construction consultant who used his motorcycle for work, traveling between home, job sites, and interviews. The primary dispute centers on whether the accident occurred during the course and scope of his employment, with conflicting evidence regarding his activities and timeline leading up to the incident. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report that found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistent statements and timeline discrepancies.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Findings and OrderCourse of EmploymentConstruction ConsultantBuilding InspectorMotorcycle TravelJob Sites
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aubry v. General Accident Insurance

Aubry Transportation, Inc. hired Wayne Felts to perform welding work, during which Donald Aubry's son lost consciousness due to poisonous fumes, and Aubry subsequently suffered a fatal heart attack. The administratrix of Aubry's estate sued Aubry Transportation, Inc. for negligence. General Accident Insurance, the corporation's insurer, disclaimed coverage and refused to defend, citing policy exclusions for employee injury in the course of employment and obligations under the Workers’ Compensation Law, along with a failure to give prompt notice. The plaintiff then initiated an action seeking a declaration that General Accident had a duty to defend. General Accident appealed from an order denying its motion for summary judgment, with a dissenting opinion arguing that summary judgment should have been granted due to the clear applicability of policy exclusions and the lack of coverage.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionsSummary Judgment AppealEmployer NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusionLate Notice ClaimDeclaratory Relief ActionWrongful DeathWelding Accident
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,374 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