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. 2019 NY Slip Op 00709 [169 AD3d 1355]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2019

Ferguson v. National Gypsum Servs. Co.

Plaintiff Dave Ferguson, an employee of nonparty Remedy Intelligent Staffing, LLC, commenced an action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained while working at defendant National Gypsum Services Company's facility. The Supreme Court denied defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court agreed with the defendant that it had exercised complete and exclusive control over the plaintiff's work, thus establishing a special employment relationship as a matter of law. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Special EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorkplace InjuryEmployer LiabilityControl TestQuestion of FactMatter of LawRespondent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Casualty Co. v. Allcity Insurance

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which initially denied Allcity Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment and granted National Casualty Company's cross-motion for reimbursement. The underlying dispute involved National's request for one half of settlement and defense costs from Allcity, stemming from a personal injury action where the owner and general contractor were additional insureds on a subcontractor's general liability policy. The appellate court unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, granting Allcity's motion and denying National's cross-motion. The reversal was based on the antisubrogation rule, which precluded National from seeking recovery from Allcity, the subcontractor's workers' compensation carrier, as Allcity would not have been obligated to contribute to the settlement. Consequently, the complaint against Allcity was dismissed.

Summary JudgmentAntisubrogation RuleAdditional InsuredReimbursementDefense CostsGeneral Liability PolicyWorkers' Compensation CarrierAppellate DivisionInsurance LawPersonal Injury Action
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. American Re-Insurance Co.

The case revolves around a dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company and American Re-Insurance Company regarding a pollution exclusion clause in a reinsurance policy. National Union sought reimbursement from American Re after settling claims where employees were exposed to metalworking fluids. American Re denied coverage, arguing its pollution exclusion applied. The court, applying Ohio law, found American Re's pollution exclusion ambiguous due to its broad language and its intended purpose of covering environmental contamination. Consequently, American Re's motion for summary judgment was denied, and National Union's motion to strike American Re's defense was granted, requiring American Re to "follow the fortunes" of National Union.

ReinsurancePollution Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationFollow the Fortunes DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAmbiguity in ContractsOhio State LawDiversity JurisdictionIndustrial Contamination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NECA Ins., Ltd. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.

Plaintiff NIL Insurance Ltd., a reinsurance company, initiated a diversity action against National Union Fire Insurance Co. and Buchanan Management Company. NIL sought recovery for moneys paid in connection with a personal injury settlement by National Union and punitive damages, alleging negligence, bad faith, and breach of contract related to settlement discussions and payment. National Union and Buchanan moved to compel arbitration of these claims. The court granted National Union's motion, finding that the reinsurance agreement's arbitration clause broadly covered all disputes, including those concerning negligence and recklessness, which could be established within arbitration. The action was dismissed without prejudice, pending the outcome of the arbitration.

ReinsuranceArbitration ClauseContract InterpretationNegligence ClaimsBad FaithBreach of ContractSettlement DisputesFederal JurisdictionMotion to Compel ArbitrationDismissal Without Prejudice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clarendon National Insurance v. TIG Reinsurance Co.

Petitioner Clarendon National Insurance Company sought to confirm a partial arbitration award correcting a mathematical error and modify a prior judgment, while Respondent TIG Reinsurance Company cross-moved to vacate the award. The court addressed whether arbitrators could correct a mathematical error in a previously issued and partially confirmed award, applying exceptions to the functus officio doctrine. Given the acknowledged mistake by the arbitrators and TIG's awareness of the incorrect figure, the court found extraordinary circumstances. Consequently, Clarendon's motion was granted, the corrected partial award confirmed, and the judgment modified, denying TIG's cross-motion, to ensure substantial justice.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActFunctus Officio DoctrineRule 60(b) FRCPArbitration Award ConfirmationJudgment ModificationMathematical Error CorrectionReinsurance AgreementJudicial ReviewEquitable Relief
References
26
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

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Eland Motor Car Co.

The case concerns whether a garage owner, Eland Motor Car Company, could assert a lien under Lien Law § 184 (1) on vehicles owned by International Automobiles, Ltd. despite Eland's principal, Andrew Bach, providing additional non-repair services and commissions. National Union Fire Insurance Company, a judgment creditor of International, challenged the lien, arguing their interest was superior. The lower courts found that the extensive business relationship precluded the lien. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that additional services do not defeat a valid garage keeper's lien for maintenance, repair, and storage, and remitted the matter for a determination of the exact outstanding debt.

Garage Owner's LienLien Law § 184Bailee of Motor VehiclesJudgment Creditor RightsPriority of LiensVehicle Repair and StorageCommercial PrinciplesArtisan's LienCPLR 5225 (b)Appellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07554 [132 AD3d 500]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2015

Bridge Street Contracting Inc. v. Everest National Insurance

This case addresses an insurer's disclaimer of coverage due to late notice of claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a lower court order, declaring that Everest National Insurance Company has no duty to defend or indemnify Bridge Street Contracting Inc. in the underlying action. The court ruled that Everest properly disclaimed coverage without needing to demonstrate prejudice, as it was not participating in the defense when Bridge Street was served with the claims. Arguments regarding waiver of the late notice defense and antisubrogation were rejected. CastlePoint Insurance Company's motion to intervene was also denied as academic.

Insurance CoverageLate NoticeDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyAntisubrogationInterventionAppellate DivisionContract Law
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

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the general contractor, commenced an action against its subcontractor's insurer, National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, seeking a declaration of coverage. Home Depot, individually and as assignee of Westward Contracting, Inc., sought to compel National Fire to defend and indemnify it as an an additional insured in an underlying action, and to indemnify Westward. The Supreme Court denied Home Depot's discovery motion, granted National Fire summary judgment declaring Home Depot was not an additional insured, and denied National Fire's motion to dismiss Home Depot's claims as Westward's assignee for lack of standing and for summary judgment on the indemnification obligation to Westward. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding Home Depot was not an additional insured and that the assignment to Home Depot was valid and did not relieve National Fire of its indemnification obligation to Westward.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredIndemnificationSummary JudgmentStandingAssignment of ClaimsSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorCommercial General Liability PolicyAppellate Review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 8,682 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