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. 02A01-9803-CH-00064
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 1999

White's Electric v. Lewis Constr.

This case involves a dispute between White's Electric, Heating, Air and Plumbing (subcontractor) and Lewis Construction Company (general contractor) and Frontier Insurance Company (surety) regarding a public housing renovation project. White's Plumbing sued for unpaid contract payments and damages for delays. The trial court initially awarded White's Plumbing damages for breach of contract and for disruption and delay. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the breach of contract damages, finding that Lewis Construction breached the contract first. However, the court reversed the award for delay damages, determining that White's Plumbing failed to comply with the notice requirements for such claims outlined in the project manual, which was incorporated by reference into the subcontract. The case was also remanded to clarify the authenticity of the contractor's bond.

Construction LawSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Contractor LiabilitySurety BondBreach of ContractDelay DamagesContractual NoticeIncorporation by ReferencePublic Works ProjectAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plumbing Industry Board, Plumbing Local Union No. 1 v. L & L Masons, Inc.

Plaintiff Plumbing Industry Board (PIB) sued E.W. Howell and American Home Assurance Construction Co., Inc., seeking unpaid fringe benefit contributions under New York's Lien Law and as a third-party beneficiary to a contract. The defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted PIB's state law claims and moved for summary judgment. PIB cross-moved for a remand to state court. The court determined that ERISA preempted both New York Lien Law § 5 and PIB's common law contract claims, ruling that the Lien Law created an obligation not permitted under ERISA and the contract claim created a new theory of recovery. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied PIB's motion to remand, and dismissed all claims.

ERISA pre-emptionNew York Lien LawFringe benefit contributionsSummary judgmentThird-party beneficiary contractCollective bargaining agreementEmployee benefit planSurety bondSubcontractor defaultFederal jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Ammean

Richard J. Ammean sued Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. (Texas Contractors) and Bayer Corporation for a back injury sustained at work. Ammean, an employee of Texas Contractors working on Bayer's premises, had previously received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Contractors' insurer. The appellate court reversed the judgment against Texas Contractors, ruling Ammean's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act due to his receipt of benefits. However, the court affirmed the judgment against Bayer, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Bayer's negligence, through its supervisory control and its employee forklift driver, proximately caused Ammean's injury. The court also upheld the jury's damage award for future loss of earning capacity against Bayer.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy ProvisionNegligenceBorrowed Servant DoctrinePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsLoss of Earning CapacityEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2000

Rosenberg v. Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc.

Robert Rosenberg, an employee of an alarm company, was allegedly injured after tripping over cardboard at a construction site. He and his wife sued Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc. (the general contractor) and Dave Mims Fifth Generation Painting Contractors (a subcontractor) under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Mims but denied Krupinski's motion for similar relief. On appeal, the order was modified; Krupinski's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim was granted, as Krupinski established it had no authority to control the activity causing the injury. However, the motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly denied due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the accident occurred in a passageway or work area and whether specific regulations (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) or (2)) were violated, and whether Krupinski was still the general contractor at the time of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafe Place to WorkAppellate DivisionTriable Issue of FactLabor Law CompliancePremises LiabilitySubcontractor
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. Stony Clove Lake Acres, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying plaintiff Michael Gangi Plumbing & Heating Contractors, Inc.'s cross-motion for summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action. The original action was commenced by Leon Harris, with the mortgage later assigned to Gangi. Defendant Miriam Breslauer, as the sole shareholder of defendant Stony Clove Lake Acres, Inc., intervened but was explicitly barred from asserting defenses on behalf of the corporation. The Supreme Court denied both Breslauer's motion to dismiss and Gangi's cross-motion, citing a factual dispute over mortgage consideration. The appellate court ruled that Breslauer's affirmative defenses were improperly raised as they could only be claimed by the corporation. It reiterated the principle of separate corporate existence. Consequently, the appellate order was modified, granting Gangi's cross-motion for summary judgment and remitting the case for the appointment of a Referee to compute, thereby affirming the order as modified.

Mortgage ForeclosureSummary JudgmentCorporate VeilShareholder RightsInterventionAffirmative DefensesAppellate ReviewCPLRRPAPLDefault Judgment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. v. Lytle

Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. appealed a Circuit Court judgment that granted workmen's compensation and medical expenses to Allen B. Lytle. The core issue was whether Lytle, a brick washer, was an employee or an independent contractor when he suffered an injury due to a scaffold collapse. The trial court deemed Lytle an employee, citing the defendant's right to control and terminate. However, the appellate court applied multiple tests, including control over work, method of payment (per job/thousand bricks), and who furnished tools and helpers. The Supreme Court found that Lytle largely operated independently, supplying his materials and labor, with limited supervision from Cromwell. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, classifying Lytle as an independent contractor, and dismissed the compensation claim.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusScaffold AccidentBrick CleaningControl TestRight of TerminationMethod of PaymentFurnishing ToolsTennessee Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh

Billy McIntosh sustained a severe hand injury while operating a power roller machine at Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana, triggering a statutory presumption under Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Act that his drug use proximately caused the injury. The trial court, however, found that McIntosh successfully rebutted this presumption, concluding that the injury was proximately caused by an inexperienced coworker engaging the machine, not McIntosh's impaired reaction time. Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. appealed this decision, arguing the trial court erred in its application of the statutory presumption and causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding that McIntosh had successfully rebutted the presumption.

References
10
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01871 [236 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Mondrangon v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.

Plaintiff Adan Mondrangon initiated an action against The Trustees of Columbia University after allegedly tripping over plumber's net and pipes in the basement of a university building. Columbia University subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp., their plumbing contractor, seeking indemnification and alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, attributing responsibility for the hazardous condition to Absolute. Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp. moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, presenting evidence that their recent work did not involve the materials cited. However, the court found triable issues of fact arising from conflicting deposition testimonies, particularly concerning whether Absolute had worked on the basement project and could have been the source of the materials. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying Absolute's motion for summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, concluding that credibility issues were for a jury to determine.

Premises liabilitypersonal injurysummary judgmentindemnificationbreach of contractthird-party claimconflicting testimonytriable issues of factAppellate DivisionNew York courts
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vast Construction, LLC v. CTC Contractors, LLC

This opinion addresses a contract dispute between general contractor CTC Contractors and subcontractor Vast Construction. Vast appealed a judgment against it, arguing it did not breach the subcontract, and raised claims under the Texas Property Code's prompt payment and construction trust fund provisions, as well as challenging the award of attorneys' fees. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding that Vast breached the contract by abandoning the project. However, the court sustained Vast's fourth issue, ruling that attorneys' fees were improperly awarded to CTC under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 38.001 because Vast is a limited liability company, not an individual or corporation. The judgment was modified to remove all attorneys' fees for CTC, and affirmed as modified.

Contract disputeSubcontractor breachGeneral contractorTexas Property CodePrompt paymentConstruction Trust Fund ActAttorneys' feesLimited Liability CompanyAppellate courtJudgment modification
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 2,156 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