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

Winkelmann v. Excelsior Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having paid its insured the full amount due under a fire policy but less than the insured's total loss, may pursue the third-party tortfeasor before the insured is fully compensated. Plaintiffs Herbert and Victoria Winkelmann's building was damaged by fire, allegedly due to James Hockins' negligence. Excelsior Insurance Company paid the Winkelmanns $221,882, fully satisfying its policy obligation, but leaving a remaining uninsured loss. Excelsior subsequently settled its subrogation claim with Hockins' insurer, Colonial Indemnity Insurance Company, for $180,000. The Winkelmanns then sued Excelsior, alleging their rights were prejudiced by the early settlement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that an insurer's subrogation rights accrue upon payment of the loss and the insurer can proceed against the tortfeasor even if the insured's losses are not fully covered. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' action against Excelsior was premature as they may still recover their remaining losses from Hockins.

SubrogationFire InsuranceInsurer RightsInsured RightsTortfeasor LiabilityMade Whole DoctrineEquitable SubrogationPremature ClaimAppellate ReviewInsurance Contract
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2001

A.I. Transport v. New York State Insurance Fund

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied a liability insurer’s application to stay an arbitration initiated by a workers’ compensation insurer. The workers’ compensation insurer sought to recover benefits paid to a bus passenger injured in an accident, where the bus was insured by the liability insurer. The court interpreted Insurance Law § 5105 (a) to allow a workers’ compensation provider, paying benefits in lieu of first party benefits, to recover amounts paid from the insurer of a liable party, even if one of the vehicles involved is a bus. It was determined that an exception for losses arising from the use of a motor vehicle (Insurance Law § 5103 [a] [1]) did not apply, as the respondent was a workers’ compensation insurer and not an automobile insurer. Consequently, the arbitration was allowed to proceed, and the petition to stay it was dismissed and unanimously affirmed.

Arbitration DisputeInsurance Law InterpretationNo-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation SubrogationBus AccidentLiability CoverageStatutory ConstructionAppellate ReviewInsurer Recovery
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kendle v. Colonie Masonry Corp.

The claimant, a laborer, fell 15 to 20 feet from a scaffold in 1990, sustaining a burst fracture at L-1 vertebra requiring spinal fusion. The employer acknowledged the accident and injuries but sought to apportion responsibility with injuries from a 1985 automobile accident. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant had fully recovered from the 1985 injuries and had returned to full-time work as a laborer, making apportionment inappropriate. The employer appealed, arguing lack of substantial evidence. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's refusal to allow the employer to introduce further evidence, as the employer failed to produce readily available records or supervisor testimony to support their claim that the claimant remained symptomatic or had not fully resumed previous employment.

Workers' CompensationScaffold FallSpinal InjuryApportionmentPrior InjuryAutomobile AccidentFull-time EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionEvidence Admissibility
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2005

Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Joyce International, Inc.

This case concerns an action to recover workers' compensation retrospective insurance premiums. The Supreme Court initially granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, denied other parts, granted limited discovery to defendant Joyce International, Inc., and dismissed the complaint against defendant Streater, Inc. On appeal, the court unanimously modified the prior order, denying Streater, Inc.'s cross-motion to dismiss and reinstating the complaint against them, while otherwise affirming the initial decision. Specifically, summary judgment for plaintiffs' second through fifth causes of action was denied due to insufficient documentation of premium computations. However, dismissal of affirmative defenses and counterclaims alleging breach of good faith and fiduciary duty was upheld. The appellate court found it an improvident exercise of discretion to dismiss against Streater, Inc., noting that plaintiffs had not abandoned the multiparty action and Streater was not prejudiced by the delay in seeking a default judgment, in consideration of CPLR 3215 (c).

Summary JudgmentInsurance PremiumsWorkers' CompensationRetrospective Premium PolicyGood Faith and Fair DealingFiduciary DutyDiscovery DisputeDefault JudgmentCPLR 3215(c)Appellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1978

Sanders v. Southfield Heights, Inc.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County. The order granted defendant Southfield Heights, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it. The complaint alleged causes of action for negligence and wrongful death. The court found that no reasonable view of the allegations supported a claim of intentional tort. Sections 10 and 11 of the Workers' Compensation Law served as an absolute bar to the action against the respondent. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed proper, and the order was affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawIntentional TortDismissalAppeal AffirmedAbsolute Bar
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1997

Foti v. Arctic Ocean Steamship Co.

Vito Foti, a longshore worker, filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries after allegedly slipping and falling on grease aboard a vessel owned by Arctic Ocean Steamship Co., Ltd. Arctic moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing there were no triable issues of fact. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied Arctic's motion. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court finding triable issues of fact regarding whether the grease constituted a dangerous condition, if it was a proximate cause of the fall, and whether Arctic breached its duty to intervene.

personal injurylongshore workerslip and fallvessel owner liabilitysummary judgment motiondangerous conditionproximate causeduty to interveneappellate reviewpremises liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2002

Dionisiou v. United Painting Contracting, Inc.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Pro-Mo-Pro appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The Supreme Court had denied Pro-Mo-Pro's motion to vacate a prior order that struck its Workers’ Compensation Law defense and had also denied summary judgment. The appellate court modified the order, ruling that the Supreme Court had improvidently exercised its discretion by not vacating the order that struck Pro-Mo-Pro's Workers’ Compensation Law defense. Consequently, the defense was reinstated. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, citing a triable issue of fact regarding whether the injured plaintiff was Pro-Mo-Pro's special employee.

Personal InjuryDamagesAppealWorkers' Compensation LawDefense ReinstatementSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeVacatur of OrderAppellate ProcedureMotion Practice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 1994

Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Island Helicopter Corp.

The plaintiff initiated an action to recover unpaid insurance premiums from the defendant for hull and liability and workers' compensation policies spanning 1985-1989. After the case was marked off the calendar, the plaintiff moved to restore it. The defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting the claims were barred by the Statute of Frauds and that the plaintiff sought retroactive premiums not agreed upon. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the judgment was reversed, and the orders dismissing the complaint were vacated. The appellate court found unresolved factual questions regarding the agreed-upon policy terms and the calculation of premiums, which precluded summary judgment. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to restore the case to the calendar was granted, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.

Breach of contractInsurance premiums disputeWorkers' compensationHull and liability insuranceStatute of Frauds defenseSummary judgment denialAppellate reviewCase restorationFactual questionsRetroactive premiums
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harry C. Partridge, Jr. & Sons, Inc. v. M & R Construction Corp. (In Re Harry C. Partridge, Jr. & Sons, Inc.)

Harry C. Partridge, Jr. & Sons, Inc., a debtor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, sought to recover an 8% retainage differential from M & R Construction Corp., the general contractor. The debtor, a subcontractor for the Camden County Correctional Facility project, argued that M & R's prime contract with the Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders only allowed for a 2% retainage, while M & R withheld 10% from the debtor. The debtor claimed a contractual clause stating, 'If General Contract allows for reduction of retainage, subcontract retainage will be reduced,' entitled them to the differential. M & R countered that no reduction had occurred in its prime contract and the debtor had not completed its obligations. The court determined the action was a core bankruptcy proceeding but ultimately dismissed the debtor's claim, finding the 10% retainage was a clearly agreed-upon term in the subcontract, justified by the debtor's failure to provide a performance bond, unlike the general contractor.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 ReorganizationContract DisputeRetainage ClauseSubcontractor RightsGeneral Contractor ObligationsSurety BondJurisdictional ChallengeCore ProceedingNew Jersey State Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2008

Westchester Medical Center v. Lincoln General Insurance

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to recover no-fault medical benefits. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case by showing that statutory billing forms were mailed and received, and the defendant failed to either pay or deny the claim within the 30-day period. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that letters advising of an investigation tolled the statutory period and that the period was tolled pending a no-fault application. Additionally, defenses related to Workers' Compensation benefits or the assignor's failure to appear at an examination under oath were found insufficient to defeat the medical provider's right to benefits.

no-fault insurancemedical benefitssummary judgmentinsurance contractstatutory periodtimely denialworkers' compensationpolicy conditionpreclusion remedyappellate review
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,007 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