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

Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance dispute over the duty to defend and indemnify. The plaintiff, Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc., sought a declaratory judgment against Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire, claiming primary insurer obligations in an underlying personal injury action. Stellar, insured by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company, had subcontracted duct work to Serge Duct Design, which was insured by Merchants. Serge was obligated to name Stellar as an additional insured. After a worker's injury and subsequent lawsuit, Merchants disclaimed coverage. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, ruling that Merchants is obligated as the primary insurer to defend Stellar from the time the second amended complaint was served, but not to indemnify Stellar. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an assessment of costs incurred by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company.

Insurance CoverageAdditional Insured StatusDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPrimary InsurerExcess InsurerSummary JudgmentContract LawSubcontract AgreementPersonal Injury Action
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1981

State v. New Hampshire Merchants Insurance

This case involves cross-appeals concerning insurance coverage for a State employee, David L. Sinnamon, after an accident. The Attorney-General defended Sinnamon when New Hampshire Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company both refused to provide coverage, despite a prior ruling establishing their respective primary and secondary duties to defend. The State then commenced an action seeking reimbursement for legal fees incurred. Initially, summary judgment was granted against Merchants but dismissed against Travelers due to perceived lack of contractual privity. The appellate court modified this decision, concluding that both insurers breached their independent duty to defend Sinnamon, thus granting summary judgment on liability against both companies and remanding for a damages hearing.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentCross AppealsReimbursement of Legal FeesPublic Officers LawState Employee DefenseBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewDeclaratory Judgment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Homestead Village Assoc., L.P. v. Diamond State Insurance

Plaintiff Homestead Village Associates, LP sued its insurers, Diamond State Insurance Company and Chubb Insurance Company of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding their duty to defend and indemnify Homestead in a personal injury action. Homestead also sued its insurance broker, Capacity Coverage Company of New Jersey, for breach of contract and negligence due to late notification of the accident. All parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted Diamond's motion, finding Homestead's 16-month delay in notification unreasonable. Chubb's motion was granted in part and denied in part, as the court found late notice from Homestead, but a factual dispute remained regarding Chubb's timely disclaimer. The court also clarified that Chubb's excess policy would not 'drop down' to cover primary obligations and it had no duty to defend. Homestead's and Capacity's cross-motions for summary judgment were denied, with factual disputes remaining regarding a special relationship and Capacity's knowledge of the accident's seriousness.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionLate Notice DefenseExcess Insurance PolicyInsurance Broker LiabilityBreach of ContractNegligence ClaimChoice of LawNew York Insurance Law
References
41
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
Dec 22, 1992

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurer's claim for contribution. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, the liability insurer for Trio Drug Corporation and additional insured 58 Realopp Corporation, sought contribution from Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, Trio's workers' compensation carrier. Aetna had settled an underlying injury action where it represented both Realopp and Trio, and subsequently sued for 50% of the settlement amount. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Aetna's summary judgment motion and the granting of Greater New York's cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court applied the anti-subrogation rule, finding that Aetna could not assert a subrogated claim against its own insured, Trio, due to potential conflicts of interest arising from its dual representation in the underlying action.

anti-subrogation ruleconflict of interestsummary judgmentcontributionworkers' compensationliability insurancethird-party claimcommon law indemnityappellate reviewinsurer dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Corp. of New York v. United States Fire Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between a primary insurer, The Insurance Corporation of New York, and an excess insurer, United States Fire Insurance Company (US Fire), regarding the timeliness of claim notice and US Fire's subsequent disclaimer. The motion court initially denied US Fire's cross-motion for summary judgment, deeming its disclaimer untimely. However, the appellate court determined that US Fire received proper notice on April 20, 2006, not March 16, 2006, making its disclaimers, issued eight days later, timely as a matter of law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting US Fire's cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against it. Additionally, an appeal from a separate order regarding US Fire's request to rescind an insurance policy was dismissed as abandoned.

Insurance PolicyExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceTimely NoticeDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewClaim NotificationInsurance ContractLiability Insurance
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Serio v. Ardra Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment in favor of Gregory V. Serio, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator of Nassau Insurance Company, against the DiLoreto defendants. The trial court's decision to pierce the corporate veil of Ardra Insurance Company, controlled from New York by Richard DiLoreto, was upheld based on New York law, despite Ardra's Bermuda incorporation. The court rejected the defendants' equitable estoppel claim, asserting that governmental agencies can alter positions in governmental functions. Furthermore, the evidence supported the jury's finding that transactions between Ardra and Nassau Insurance Company were unfair and inequitable, as the DiLoretos diverted funds, thereby denying Nassau coverage. The appellate court found the verdict consistent with the evidence and noted the defendants waived their claim regarding the jury's composition by consent.

Corporate Veil PiercingReinsuranceEquitable EstoppelGovernmental FunctionInsurance LawJury VerdictAppellate ReviewUnfair TransactionsCorporate DebtNew York Law
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06847 [165 AD3d 1377]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Matter of Duncan v. Crucible Metals

Linda Duncan, widow of William Duncan, applied for workers' compensation death benefits after her husband's death from lung cancer, allegedly due to occupational asbestos exposure while employed by Crucible Metals. New Hampshire Insurance Company, a carrier, failed to appear at hearings and was deemed liable, incurring a penalty. New Hampshire Insurance challenged its liability and the penalty, claiming it covered Crucible Industries, Inc., not Crucible Metals, and its non-appearance was inadvertent. The Workers' Compensation Board denied their application for review as untimely. New Hampshire Insurance's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was also denied, leading to this appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, limiting its inquiry to whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, finding no such issues.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsOccupational ExposureAsbestosLung CancerTimeliness of AppealReconsiderationBoard ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and Capricious
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2004

Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. v. Royal Surplus Lines Insurance

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union), The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (Columbia), and Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. (Bovis) against Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Royal). The core issue is whether Royal's disclaimer of liability under Insurance Law § 3420 (d) was timely. The court found that Royal's disclaimer to Bovis and Columbia was untimely as a matter of law because its internal staffing issues were not a reasonable excuse for the delay. However, the court also ruled that § 3420 (d) does not apply to disclaimers between co-insurers, thus Royal's disclaimer was timely as to National Union. Furthermore, the court determined that Royal's "New Residential Work or Products Exclusion" did not apply to Millennium's work on a mixed-use building, thus obligating Royal to defend and indemnify Bovis and Columbia, and Royal was ordered to reimburse National Union for defense costs incurred from March 3, 2003.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of LiabilityDenial of CoverageInsurance Law § 3420 (d)Timeliness of DisclaimerInternal Staffing IssuesCo-Insurer LiabilityAdditional InsuredPolicy ExclusionNew Residential Work Exclusion
References
22
Case No. 96
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2017

American Economy Insurance Company v. State of New York

The New York Court of Appeals examined the constitutionality of a 2013 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, which closed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases to new applications. Plaintiff insurance companies argued this imposed unfunded liabilities for policies finalized before the amendment, violating constitutional clauses. The Appellate Division had found the amendment unconstitutional as retroactively applied. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that even assuming a retroactive impact, it was constitutionally permissible under the Contract, Takings, and Due Process Clauses. The court found the amendment did not impair contracts, identify a vested property interest, or violate due process, as its retroactive application served a rational legislative purpose to benefit New York businesses.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawRetroactive LegislationContract ClauseTakings ClauseDue ProcessSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesConstitutional LawLegislative AmendmentPolicy Liability
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 21,119 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