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

Travelers Insurance v. Nory Construction Co.

Plaintiff Travelers Insurance Company initiated a subrogation action against Nory Construction Co., Inc. to recover over $3.5 million paid to satisfy a judgment against its insured, the State of New York, following a construction accident. Travelers sought common-law indemnification, arguing Nory was entirely at fault, including amounts paid beyond its policy limits. Nory countered that Travelers could not recover voluntary payments, and the claim was barred by the antisubrogation rule and untimely disclaimer. The court denied Travelers' motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence regarding Nory's sole fault. Ultimately, the court granted Nory's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Travelers' overpayment, made without legal compulsion or Nory's request, constituted a voluntary payment and was therefore not recoverable under equitable subrogation principles.

SubrogationIndemnificationInsurance Policy LimitsAntisubrogation RuleVoluntary Payment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionConstruction LawWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCommercial General LiabilityUmbrella Policy
References
48
Case No. SBR 0332348
Regular
Dec 07, 2007

WILLIAM VOGT vs. HERNANDEZ, KROONE & ASSOCIATES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial denial of benefits, and found that the applicant sustained industrial injury. The Board determined that the applicant, a civil engineer who was provided a vehicle and paid for travel time, was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of his vehicle collision, despite being found traveling in the opposite direction of his commute. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryMotor Vehicle CollisionCourse of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleMaterial DeviationEmployer Provided VehiclePaid Travel TimePreponderance of EvidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cephalon, Inc. v. Travelers Companies, Inc.

Plaintiff Cephalon, Inc. initiated a declaratory judgment action against The Travelers Companies, Inc. and its four subsidiaries in the Southern District of New York. Cephalon sought a declaration that its off-label promotion of the drug Actiq did not violate the FDCA and caused no injury to Travelers. This suit was filed after Travelers, a workers' compensation insurer, sent pre-suit settlement demands to Cephalon, accusing it of causing damages through off-label drug promotion. Travelers moved to dismiss or transfer the case. The court granted Travelers' motion to dismiss, ruling that Cephalon's declaratory action was improperly anticipatory, having been filed in direct response to Travelers' specific threat of litigation and impending deadlines.

Declaratory JudgmentImproperly AnticipatoryFirst-Filed RuleMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Off-Label Drug PromotionFood, Drug and Cosmetics ActInsurance DisputeWorkers' CompensationForum Selection
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kalloo ex rel. Ulimited Mechanical Co. of NY, Inc. v. Unlimited Mechanical Co. of NY, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kevin Kalloo, Shahrazz Mohammad, and Clement Albertie sued Unlimited Mechanical Co. of New York, Inc. and its president, Nicholas Bournias, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs claimed they were not paid appropriate overtime compensation for hours worked, uncompensated travel time, and, in Mr. Kalloo's case, unpaid wages for his last two weeks of employment. The court found Mr. Bournias individually liable as an employer under both acts and determined that Mr. Kalloo was an employee, not an independent contractor. The court concluded that the defendants failed to pay full overtime and straight time wages for hours worked and travel time, awarding substantial damages and liquidated damages to all three plaintiffs. Defendants' counterclaims for unjust enrichment against Mr. Albertie and tortious interference against Mr. Kalloo were denied.

Wage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationUnpaid Travel TimeFLSA ViolationsNYLL ViolationsEmployer ResponsibilityIndividual Employer LiabilityEmployee ClassificationDamages AwardLiquidated Damages
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. 2015-455 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

This case involves Metro Psychological Services, P.C., as an assignee, seeking first-party no-fault benefits from Travelers Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the assignor's injuries occurred during employment, which would make workers' compensation benefits applicable. The Civil Court denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Term reversed this order, concluding there was an unresolved issue as to whether the plaintiff's assignor was acting in the course of employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Civil Court to be held in abeyance, pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law, underscoring the Board's primary jurisdiction in such matters.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeMedical ProviderAssigneeCourse of Employment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pecker Iron Works of New York, Inc. v. Traveler's Insurance

This case involves a dispute between Pecker Iron Works and Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut concerning the primary versus excess coverage obligations of two liability insurance carriers. Pecker, designated as an 'additional insured' under Upfront Enterprises' policy with Travelers, sought primary coverage after an Upfront worker was injured on a construction site. Travelers contended its policy provided only excess coverage for additional insureds unless explicitly designated as primary in a written contract. The Supreme Court initially agreed with Travelers, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that coverage for additional insureds is presumed primary unless unambiguously stated otherwise. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Pecker was entitled to primary coverage.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSubcontractor AgreementDeclaratory JudgmentContract InterpretationLiability InsuranceConstruction ProjectAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,873 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