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

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
Case No. ADJ4517414 (EUR 0036075)
Regular
Sep 13, 2010

, C. AND J. RANDY LINGARD vs. EUREKA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE, by ESIS CHATSWORTH

The defendant, Pacific Employers Insurance, sought reconsideration of a compromise and release order, arguing the payment was erroneously ordered against ACE USA instead of "Pacific Employers Insurance Group." The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because a fully executed amended compromise and release agreement was subsequently submitted. The original order is rescinded and the matter is returned to the trial level for review of the amended agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseWCJPacific Employers Insurance GroupACE USAESISAmended Compromise and Release AgreementRescinded OrderTrial Level
References
0
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06582 [131 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2015

Tully Construction Co. v. Illinois National Insurance

Tully Construction Co., Inc. (Tully) and Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) appealed an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County. The Supreme Court denied their separate motions for summary judgment on the complaint and granted Illinois National Insurance Company's (Illinois) cross-motion for summary judgment. The dispute centered on Illinois's obligation to indemnify Tully under a commercial umbrella liability insurance policy, which was contingent upon the exhaustion of underlying insurance. The Supreme Court found that Zurich's Workers Compensation and Employers Liability policy had an unlimited liability provision. As a result, the excess coverage of Illinois's umbrella policy was never triggered. The Appellate Division affirmed the order and judgment, declaring that Illinois had no obligation to indemnify Tully and that Zurich must reimburse Illinois for $2,500,000.

Insurance coverage disputeUmbrella liability insuranceWorkers' Compensation policyEmployers Liability policySummary judgment motionIndemnification obligationPolicy exhaustionExcess coverage triggerPrimary insurer vs. excess insurerAppellate Division Second Department
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1990

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Insurance Co. of North America

This case concerns an action by an insurer to recover a pro rata contribution from a co-insurer for a settlement paid in a personal injury action. The underlying personal injury suit involved an injured employee against site owners, who then filed a third-party claim against the employer. The plaintiff insurer covered the employer's workers' compensation and employer's liability policies, while the defendant was a co-insurer on the employer's liability policy with an exclusion for employee injuries. The court found the exclusion ambiguous and ruled against the defendant on this point. However, the court also determined that the defendant was not liable for a waived workers' compensation lien as a matter of law, modifying the initial judgment to dismiss the second cause of action.

Insurance DisputePro Rata ContributionSettlementPersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployer's LiabilityExclusion ClauseAmbiguitySummary JudgmentAppellate Decision
References
4
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. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2000

AIU Insurance v. American Motorists Insurance

This case concerns an appeal regarding primary liability coverage for HRH Construction Corp. and Hotel Grand Central in an underlying personal injury action. Plaintiffs, including their excess insurer AIU Insurance Co., sought to compel American Motorists Insurance Co. and St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. to provide primary defense and reimbursement. The court found American Motorists obligated to defend HRH and the Hotel, as their policy covered them as additional insureds for claims "arising out of" work performed by American Motorists' primary insured, Cord Contracting Co. However, St. Paul was not similarly obligated, as the injury did not "arise out of" work by its insured, Forest Electric Corp. Consequently, the court modified the prior declaration, vacating the plaintiffs' favor against St. Paul and dismissing Cord Contracting Co.'s cross-appeal.

Insurance DisputePrimary Liability CoverageExcess InsuranceAdditional InsuredPersonal InjuryConstruction SiteSubcontractorContractual ObligationDuty to DefendIndemnification
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perth Amboy Drydock Co. v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance

This case concerns the interpretation of an insurance policy issued to Perth Amboy Drydock Co. by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance. The policy provided workmen's compensation and employer's liability coverage, primarily for 'shipwright work' employees. The core dispute revolved around an endorsement that expanded liability limits. While the endorsement's heading mentioned 'Masters or Members of the Crews of Vessels', a typewritten addendum at its foot broadened its application to 'Shipwright Work and operation of Tugboats'. The court affirmed the order and judgment, holding that the typewritten statement should prevail, resolving any ambiguity in favor of the insured. A dissenting opinion argued against this interpretation, asserting that the language was clear and restricted to maritime employees.

Insurance PolicyWorkmen's CompensationEmployer's LiabilityPolicy EndorsementContract InterpretationAmbiguityShipwright WorkMaritime LawAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 1980

Claim of Porta v. Otis Glazebrook Associates, Inc.

The Uninsured Employers’ Fund appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from February 11, 1980. The fund contended that a compensation insurance policy issued by Royal Globe Insurance Co. to a corporate employer was improperly canceled and should have remained in effect after the claimant's injury. The court found that the carrier mailed the cancellation notice in the required form to the employer's last known business address and to the Workers’ Compensation Board chairman. The court stated that the insurance agency's knowledge of the employer's president living elsewhere did not require a deviation from the legal prerequisites for valid cancellation under Workers’ Compensation Law, § 54, subd 5. The decision affirmed the board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported it and no abuse of discretion was shown in rejecting the fund's argument.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationUninsured Employers' FundPolicy CancellationStatutory ComplianceAppealSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewRoyal Globe Insurance
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1995

Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.

This case addresses a dispute between Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company (Wausau) and Continental Casualty Company (Continental), along with The Hartford Insurance Group. Wausau, as the employer's liability carrier for H. Sand & Company, successfully argued that a third-party action by Slattery-Argrett, subrogor of Continental, against H. Sand & Company, constituted an impermissible subrogation claim by an insurer against its own insured. The underlying matter involved a personal injury sustained by an employee of H. Sand & Company. Continental had initially disclaimed coverage for Sand in the third-party action. The Supreme Court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, declaring the subrogation action a violation of public policy and awarding Wausau damages. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, distinguishing the present case from prior rulings like *North Star Reins. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co.*, and emphasizing the distinction between claims for indemnification and contribution within insurance policy exclusions.

Subrogation ClaimInsurance Coverage DisputeIndemnification vs. ContributionPublic Policy in InsuranceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityGeneral Liability InsuranceExcess Liability InsuranceConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 21,141 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