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

Brock v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement from a product liability action, specifically regarding the entitlement of the plaintiff's attorneys to a pro rata share of counsel fees from the Special Disability Fund. In the original settlement, plaintiff Leonard Brock assigned claims against the Fund to his attorneys, Pattison, Sampson, Ginsberg & Griffin, P. C., while Liberty Mutual Insurance Company waived its workers' compensation lien. Supreme Court initially ruled that Liberty Mutual's lien waiver precluded any further claims against the Fund for attorney fees. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the Special Disability Fund benefited from the plaintiff's litigation by being relieved of its liability to Liberty Mutual for payments after 104 weeks of disability. Consequently, the Fund is liable for a pro rata share of the litigation expenses, and the matter was remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings to determine this benefit.

Product LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundAttorney FeesSettlement AgreementLien WaiverPro Rata ShareReimbursementAppellate ReviewUnjust Enrichment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carminucci v. Pepsico, Inc.

The intervener plaintiff Madrone Excavating Company, Inc., by its subrogee ITT Hartford Accident Indemnity Company appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order determined that New York Workers’ Compensation Law applied, denying full reimbursement to ITT Hartford for benefits paid to Mark T. Carminucci and compelling ITT Hartford to pay a pro rata share of litigation expenses. The appellate court reversed, ruling that Connecticut law applies because benefits were paid under Connecticut's Workers’ Compensation Act. Under Connecticut law, ITT Hartford, as subrogee, is entitled to full reimbursement of both past and the present value of future workers’ compensation benefits. The court further held that ITT Hartford is not required to share litigation expenses on a pro rata basis. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for a hearing to determine the total reimbursement amount.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationReimbursementChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentAppellate ReviewLitigation Expenses
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochal v. Television Technology Corp.

David Ochal suffered severe electrocution injuries in a work-related accident in February 1988. His personal injury action was settled by stipulation in November 1999, which included a structured settlement and an agreement by a third-party defendant to pay $50,000, waive a substantial workers' compensation lien, and cover pre-settlement medical bills. In May 2004, Ochal moved to enforce the stipulation, seeking payment for approximately $20,000 in medical bills and a pro rata share of litigation costs from the third-party defendant's workers' compensation carrier. The Supreme Court denied his motion, and Ochal appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial, ruling that Ochal had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by submitting medical bills 4.5 years post-settlement and that his claim for pro rata litigation costs lacked merit due to his failure to reserve this right during the settlement.

Structured SettlementStipulation of SettlementContract InterpretationImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingWorkers' Compensation LienMedical BillsPro Rata Share of Litigation CostsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractWaiver of Rights
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1991

North River Insurance v. United National Insurance

This appellate decision addresses the apportionment of liability between North River Insurance Co. and United National Insurance Company arising from a settlement for an injured employee. The court clarified that North River, as the workers' compensation carrier, is solely responsible for its waived lien, reversing a lower court's finding. It further determined that both insurers' "other insurance" clauses called for pro rata contribution, not equal shares, for the $588,245 settlement payment and defense costs. The court calculated specific shares for each insurer and ruled that North River is entitled to interest from the original payment date in 1982. The Supreme Court's order was thus modified to reflect these findings.

Insurance disputePro rata contributionEquitable apportionmentWorkers' compensation lienDefense costsOther insurance clausesSettlement apportionmentInterest calculationAppellate decisionInsurer liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olivo v. Olivo

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two cases, Tan-chick v Tanchick and Olivo v Olivo, concerning the equitable distribution of early retirement incentive packages accepted by former husbands post-divorce. The incentive package from Eastman Kodak Company included an Enhanced Retirement Income Benefit, a Social Security Bridge Payment, and a separation payment. The court ruled that generally, post-divorce early retirement incentives are not marital property and thus not subject to equitable distribution. However, the portion of the package that specifically enhances pension benefits is considered marital property. Consequently, the Appellate Division's order in Tan-chick v Tanchick, which denied the former wife rights to the Social Security Bridge Payment and separation allowance, was affirmed. In Olivo v Olivo, the Appellate Division's order was modified to allow the former wife to share in the enhanced retirement income benefit, calculating her pro rata share against the pension actually obtained.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyPension BenefitsEarly Retirement IncentiveQualified Domestic Relations OrderDeferred CompensationPost-Divorce AssetsSpousal RightsEastman Kodak CompanyNY Court of Appeals Precedent
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07367 [211 AD3d 1582]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2022

Bregaudit v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Ctr.

Plaintiff Edison Bregaudit sought damages after slipping on ice at a facility owned by Loretto Health and Rehabilitation Center, which contracted Pro Scapes, Inc. for snow removal. Pro Scapes initially moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, a motion initially granted by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed parts of the lower court's decision. The Appellate Division found a question of fact existed regarding whether Pro Scapes negligently created or exacerbated the dangerous icy condition by using inadequate deicer, which could lead to refreezing. Consequently, the court denied parts of Pro Scapes' motion for summary judgment and reinstated the amended complaint and cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Pro Scapes.

Snow and IceSlip and FallPremises LiabilitySnow Removal ContractSummary JudgmentDuty of CareTort LiabilityExacerbated ConditionNegligenceRefreezing
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cosgrove v. County of Ulster

Petitioner, injured in a work-related accident, received workers' compensation and subsequently settled a third-party tort action against the respondent for $15,000. Petitioner's counsel believed the employer's insurance carrier had approved a one-third share of the settlement but the carrier failed to provide disbursement instructions for its portion. After the carrier terminated workers' compensation benefits, petitioner sought judicial approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court granted this approval, which the carrier then appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the settlement amount was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial approval was not due to petitioner's fault, and the carrier was not prejudiced by the delay.

Workers' CompensationPersonal Injury SettlementNunc Pro Tunc ApprovalJudicial DiscretionCarrier ConsentThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewSettlement ReasonablenessDelay ExcuseLack of Prejudice
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Accident Insurance v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Insurance

Plaintiff, an insurer, sought recovery from defendant, another insurer, after defending its insured in an underlying action and paying the resulting judgment. The plaintiff had failed to give timely notice of disclaimer based on an exclusion in its policy, while the defendant refused to assume defense, claiming its policy did not cover the accident. The underlying action stemmed from injuries caused by a water softener tank falling from a push cart. Supreme Court determined both insurers were coinsurers, responsible for pro rata shares based on policy limits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting both insurers' arguments regarding policy exclusions by strictly construing the exclusions and citing prior case law, concluding that both policies provided primary coverage.

Insurance LawCoverage DisputeExclusion ClauseDuty to DefendPro Rata ContributionCoinsuranceWaiverEstoppelSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1992

COMM'RS OF THE STATE INS. FUND v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.

The State Insurance Fund (SIF), an insurer, sought pro rata contribution from another insurer, Insurance Company of North America (INA), for a settlement paid in a personal injury action involving a shared insured, Clay Drywall, Inc. SIF claimed contributions for both 'fresh money' and a waived workers' compensation lien. The Appellate Division initially granted SIF summary judgment for the 'fresh money' component but denied it for the lien waiver. However, the Court of Appeals modified this decision, ruling that both of SIF's causes of action should be dismissed. The Court determined that an unambiguous exclusion clause in INA's policy, which covered claims arising from employee bodily injury on the job, precluded INA's liability for contribution in this case.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PolicyIndemnificationContributionExclusion ClauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBodily InjuryEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
5
Case No. 518026
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2014

NewYorkStateWorkers'CompensationBoardvBastHatfield,Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Bast Hatfield, Inc. (defendant) from an order denying its motion to compel the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (plaintiff) to file a satisfaction piece against a judgment. Defendant, a member of an insolvent group self-insured trust, failed to pay its pro rata share of the trust's deficit, leading plaintiff to obtain a Workers' Compensation Law § 26 judgment for payments made to an injured employee. Defendant argued the judgment was satisfied by reimbursements plaintiff received from the Special Disability Fund (SDF). The Court affirmed, holding that payments from the SDF did not satisfy the judgment against defendant, as defendant had not paid its required assessments to fund either the trust or the SDF. The judgment was intended to recover funds plaintiff paid on defendant's behalf due to defendant's default.

Workers' CompensationGroup Self-Insured TrustInsolvencyAssessmentJudgmentSpecial Disability FundSatisfaction PieceJoint and Several LiabilityEmployer DefaultAppellate Division
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 745 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