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
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. 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
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. 2014 NY Slip Op 08848 [123 AD3d 933]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2014

Public Service Mutual Insurance v. Fiduciary Insurance Co. of America

This case involves an appeal by Fiduciary Insurance Company of America (appellant) from an order and judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (respondent), as subrogee of Peter Daversa. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the petition to confirm and denied Fiduciary's cross-petition to vacate the arbitration award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order, finding it merged into the judgment, and affirmed the judgment. The court applied closer judicial scrutiny to the compulsory arbitration award, determining that the arbitrator's decision had ample evidentiary support and was not arbitrary or capricious. The appellant's contentions regarding proximate cause, burden of proof, and prejudgment interest were found to be without merit.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationInsurance SubrogationAppellate ReviewJudicial ScrutinyEvidentiary SupportArbitrator's DeterminationProximate CausationBurden of ProofPrejudgment InterestCPLR Article 75 Proceeding
References
8
Case No. CA 11-00156
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2011

MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND

Plaintiff, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, initiated an action against New York State Insurance Fund to recover funds related to an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. The core issue was the defendant's obligation to indemnify Jerrick Waterproofing Co., Inc. for a construction accident. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, which the defendant appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendant was indeed obligated to provide unlimited coverage to Jerrick Waterproofing, despite a policy exclusion, as a common-law right to indemnity existed. Consequently, the plaintiff's excess coverage was not triggered.

Insurance disputeWorkers' CompensationIndemnificationExcess coverageSummary judgmentAppellate reviewNew York lawEmployer liabilityPolicy exclusionCommon-law indemnity
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 1995

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. State Insurance Fund

Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union) initiated a declaratory judgment action against The State Insurance Fund (SIF) to recover defense and settlement costs. These costs were expended on behalf of Regional Scaffolding and Hoisting Co., Inc., a mutually insured party in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court initially denied National Union's motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of SIF. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the antisubrogation rule did not apply in this context. Consequently, it determined that National Union and SIF were co-insurers for Regional Scaffolding's common-law liability. The court granted National Union's motion for summary judgment in part, declaring SIF's duty to reimburse National Union for one-half of the reasonable settlement and defense costs, and remanded for a trial to ascertain these amounts.

Antisubrogation RuleDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeCo-Insurer LiabilityDefense Costs ReimbursementSettlement CostsEmployer's LiabilityComprehensive General LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
8
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
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance

Plaintiff insurance companies, Continental Insurance Co. and American Casualty Co. (CNA), initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they have no duty to indemnify Robert A. Keasbey Co. (Keasbey) for asbestos-related claims, arguing that all claims fall under exhausted products hazard/completed operations coverage. The defendant class of asbestos claimants sought coverage under a new 'operations' theory not subject to aggregate limits. The trial court ruled in favor of the claimants, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court found that equitable affirmative defenses like laches applied against the claimants, who stood in Keasbey’s shoes. It further determined that coverage is triggered by 'injury-in-fact' rather than mere exposure to asbestos, and that the aggregate limits of the primary and excess policies were exhausted, thus absolving CNA of further indemnity obligations.

AsbestosInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentProducts HazardCompleted OperationsOperations CoverageAggregate LimitsExcess InsuranceBodily InjuryInjury-in-Fact
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 15,353 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