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. CA 12-01554
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2013

SMITH, PAUL J. v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY

Paul J. Smith, a plaintiff, sued Nestle Purina Petcare Company (Nestle) for injuries sustained after slipping and falling in a grain silo during a construction project. Nestle then initiated a third-party action against E.E. Austin & Son, Inc. (Austin), Smith's employer. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from Nestle and Austin. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Nestle and Austin on Labor Law § 240 (1) and most of § 241 (6) claims, finding the injury unrelated to ladder use and certain regulations inapplicable. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2), the Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims, and the contractual indemnification claim between Nestle and Austin due to unresolved factual issues regarding Nestle's negligence.

Labor LawWorkplace InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilityNegligenceSlip and FallGrain Silo
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Insurance Fund v. Circus Man Ice Cream Corp.

The Commissioner of the State Insurance Fund, as plaintiff, initiated an action against Circus Man Ice Cream Corp. for unpaid workers' compensation premiums, contending that the company's ice cream truck drivers were employees and therefore subject to coverage. Circus Man disputed this, asserting the drivers were independent contractors. The plaintiff's premium calculation relied on an auditor's assumption of an employer/employee relationship, which the defendant challenged, providing evidence of the drivers' autonomy, including leasing trucks, purchasing supplies independently, and establishing their own territories. The court, applying the 'right of control' test and other factors, determined that the street vendors were indeed independent contractors. Consequently, the court found Circus Man Ice Cream Corp. not liable for the workers' compensation premiums sought by the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployee RelationshipPremium DisputeIce Cream VendorsRight of ControlAuditLease AgreementNew York LawState Insurance Fund
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of E.E. Austin & Son, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated grain dust and a hose while working on a construction project at a grain silo owned by Nestle Purina Petcare Company. Plaintiff commenced an action against Nestle Purina Petcare Company, alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. Nestle, in turn, filed a third-party action against Austin for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from both Nestle and Austin, leading to this appeal and cross-appeal. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and partially dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (except for the part based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2)). However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Labor LawCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationGrain silo accidentConstruction project injuryTripping hazardPremises liabilitySupervisory controlIndemnity provision
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Darrah v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp.

Plaintiff Marsha Darrah sued Friendly Ice Cream Corporation alleging retaliation and constructive termination in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Friendly moved to compel arbitration and for summary judgment, arguing Darrah failed to utilize their Open Door Policy as a condition precedent to arbitration. The court found that Darrah fulfilled her duty to engage in the Open Door Policy by bringing her grievances to management. However, Friendly failed to fulfill its duty by not engaging in the policy in good faith, effectively repudiating the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the court denied Friendly's motions to compel arbitration and for summary judgment.

FMLARetaliationConstructive TerminationArbitration AgreementOpen Door PolicyFederal Arbitration ActSummary JudgmentEmployment LawCondition PrecedentScope of Arbitration
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sinnett v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp.

Michael Sinnett sued Friendly Ice Cream Corporation and others, alleging Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations and several common law claims related to his employment as a General Manager. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or compel arbitration, citing an employment dispute resolution policy and contract to arbitrate. The court analyzed whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) mandated enforcement of the agreement and whether Sinnett had waived his right to arbitration. The court found that an enforceable arbitration agreement existed, Sinnett's claims fell within its broad scope, and FLSA claims are arbitrable. Consequently, the court dismissed Sinnett's claims and ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementFLSAEmployment LawBreach of ContractFraudNegligent MisrepresentationMotion to DismissCompel ArbitrationWaiverSecond Circuit
References
23
Case No. ADJ1246616 (BAK 0106371) ADJ3243674 (BAK 0120076) ADJ3688132 (BAK 0119854)
Regular
Apr 13, 2009

JENNY LUND-MAVITY, JENNY LUND vs. NESTLE ICE CREAM COMPANY/CARNATION, AMERICAN MOTORIST/KEMPER, NESTLE FOODS, NESTLE USA Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an arbitrator's findings due to a procedural defect. The arbitrator failed to issue a decision within the 30-day timeframe mandated by Labor Code section 5277, which invalidates the submission. Consequently, the arbitrator's findings are vacated, the arbitrator's fee is forfeited, and the case is returned for new arbitration proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationArbitrator's Findings of FactReimbursementTemporary DisabilityLabor Code Section 5277ForfeitureVacatedSubmission OrderArbitration Proceedings
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arcadi v. Nestle Foods Corp.

This class action, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), involved employees and former employees of Nestle Foods Corporation who sought overtime compensation for time spent changing into and out of mandatory uniforms. The defendant, Nestle, moved for summary judgment, arguing that this time was non-compensable based on an established "custom or practice" under their collective bargaining agreement, as permitted by FLSA § 203(o). Plaintiffs contended they never explicitly agreed to forgo such compensation. The court examined prior case law on Section 203(o) and found compelling similarities, noting that the employees effectively bargained away their right to compensation for clothes-changing time in exchange for other concessions. Consequently, the court granted Nestle's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Collective Bargaining AgreementOvertime CompensationUniform PolicyClothes-Changing TimeSummary JudgmentClass Action LawsuitCustom or PracticeLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Studint v. LaSalle Ice Cream Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a former employee and shareholder of LaSalle Ice Cream Co., brought this action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), New York common law, and New York Penal Law. The plaintiff claimed constructive termination and asserted several stockholder's derivative claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court denied the motion to dismiss the ADEA claims and employment-related state law claims, finding them sufficiently inter-related for pendent jurisdiction. However, the court granted the dismissal of stockholder-related claims, including those seeking dissolution and receivership, as they were deemed likely to confuse the jury and prolong litigation, suggesting they be pursued in state court.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawConstructive TerminationShareholder DisputeStockholder Derivative ClaimsMotion to DismissPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtCorporate MismanagementFiduciary Duty
References
6
Case No. CA 10-00545
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

HAHN AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (plaintiff) initiated a breach of contract action against American Zurich Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendants), contending that bills issued under insurance contracts were time-barred. Defendants counterclaimed for damages stemming from plaintiff's alleged breach of these contracts. The Supreme Court partially granted plaintiff's cross-motion, deeming counterclaims for debts arising over six years prior as time-barred. Concurrently, it permitted defendants to utilize a $400,000 letter of credit to satisfy any outstanding debt, including those deemed time-barred. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the use of the letter of credit for time-barred debts, reasoning that the statute of limitations only bars the remedy, not the underlying obligation. The court also affirmed that defendants' counterclaims for debts over six years old were time-barred, as the right to demand payment accrued earlier. Finally, the court modified the order to dismiss plaintiff's second through fourth causes of action. A dissenting opinion argued that the counterclaims were not time-barred, asserting that the cause of action accrued upon demand and refusal of payment, not merely when the right to demand payment existed.

Breach of contractInsurance contractsStatute of limitationsLetter of creditSummary judgmentAppellate reviewContract interpretationTime-barred claimsAccrual of cause of actionRetrospective premiums
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hakim v. Armstrong Rubber Co.

Joseph Hakim initiated a negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries after a forklift tire he was changing exploded. He alleged that Armstrong Rubber Company negligently designed and manufactured the tire, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company negligently designed and manufactured the wheel rim, and Clark Equipment Company negligently manufactured and failed to inspect the forklift. Armstrong and Firestone successfully moved for summary judgment by presenting evidence that they did not manufacture the specific tire or rim involved, which Hakim failed to rebut with sufficient evidence. Conversely, Clark Equipment Company's motion for summary judgment was denied due to its failure to provide any evidence disproving its involvement in the forklift's manufacture or inspection.

Forklift accidentTire explosionProduct liabilitySummary judgmentNegligenceManufacturing defectDesign defectInspection failureHearsay evidencePrima facie case
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,890 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