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

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. American Re-Insurance Co.

The case revolves around a dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company and American Re-Insurance Company regarding a pollution exclusion clause in a reinsurance policy. National Union sought reimbursement from American Re after settling claims where employees were exposed to metalworking fluids. American Re denied coverage, arguing its pollution exclusion applied. The court, applying Ohio law, found American Re's pollution exclusion ambiguous due to its broad language and its intended purpose of covering environmental contamination. Consequently, American Re's motion for summary judgment was denied, and National Union's motion to strike American Re's defense was granted, requiring American Re to "follow the fortunes" of National Union.

ReinsurancePollution Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationFollow the Fortunes DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAmbiguity in ContractsOhio State LawDiversity JurisdictionIndustrial Contamination
References
31
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03287
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Dejesus v. Downtown Re Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Brian Dejesus was injured when a steel tubing fell through a gap in a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, addressing multiple indemnification and breach of contract claims among the owner (Downtown Re Holdings LLC), general contractor (Noble Construction Group, LLC), and various subcontractors. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Noble's negligence and granted Downtown summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. due to its negligence in bridge erection. Claims against City Safety Compliance Corp. were dismissed as its role was merely advisory. The decision also involved contractual indemnification between Downtown/Noble and The Safety Group, Ltd., granting a breach of contract claim against TSG for failing to procure required insurance.

Construction AccidentSidewalk Bridge DefectIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance ProcurementBreach of Contract
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between State Laundry Corp. & Laundry Workers Joint Board

The respondent sought to open a default on a motion to confirm an arbitration award, which was granted on November 29, 1960. The respondent's attorney was informed of the default on November 28, 1960, and was served with the order on December 13, 1960. Despite this, the motion to open the default was not filed until February 21, 1960, nearly three months later, with the only explanation being an unspecified family death. The court denied the motion, finding the excuse for the significant delay insufficient and the respondent's affidavit of merits lacking in facts necessary to vacate or modify the award. The court also affirmed that a party who participated in arbitration cannot claim the arbitrator exceeded authority, and judicial intervention is unwarranted for factual or legal errors if the arbitrator had jurisdiction.

ArbitrationDefault JudgmentMotion PracticeExcuse for DelayAffidavit of MeritsJurisdictionJudicial Review of Arbitration AwardsCivil Practice ActArbitrator AuthorityDenial of Motion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2005

In re the Claim of Abramson

Claimant, an accountant placed by Staff Plus, Inc. at Goldman Sachs, was denied extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Staff Plus was his base period employer, making him ineligible because Staff Plus was not a provider of services to an air carrier. An initial appeal led to remittal for further record development regarding the relationship between Staff Plus and the claimant. After re-evaluation, the Board reiterated its decision, finding a clear employment relationship between claimant and Staff Plus, which was supported by the evidence. The court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the denial of TEUC-A benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsTEUC-ATemporary Employment AgencyEmployment RelationshipBase Period EmployerDisplaced Airline-Related WorkersEligibility for BenefitsAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

This Memorandum & Order by Judge Korman addresses objections to the allocation of settlement funds in the In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation class action. The Pink Triangle Coalition and Disability Rights Advocates proposed separate cy pres distributions for homosexual and disabled Nazi victims, respectively, aiming to fund education, research, and advocacy programs. They argued these groups were historically overlooked and difficult to identify for individual compensation. Judge Korman rejected both proposals, reaffirming the current allocation strategy of distributing funds directly to the neediest individual Holocaust survivors. The judge reasoned that the overwhelming and life-sustaining needs of survivors, particularly in areas like the Former Soviet Union, supersede the proposed cy pres distributions. He emphasized that the primary goal is restitution to individual victims, that there are no distinct sub-classes, and that disabled survivors are already major recipients of aid.

HolocaustClass Action SettlementFund AllocationCy Pres DoctrineVictim CompensationHomosexual VictimsDisabled VictimsNazi PersecutionHumanitarian AidSurvivor Support
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Mento

The court unanimously reversed the orders and granted the motion to open a default, deeming the refusal to open the default of the appellant executor an improvident exercise of discretion. The decision highlighted that no citation was served on the executor, and the attorney's fault should not be attributed to the estate. Furthermore, the default in attending a single hearing was not considered clearly deliberate or contumacious, especially given the potential for meritorious defenses to the substantial claim against the estate. The court emphasized the legal preference for resolving cases on their merits and affirmed its inherent power, alongside CPLR provisions, to open judgments in the interest of justice.

Default judgmentAppealEstate lawJudicial discretionLegal servicesDue processAttorney misconductMeritorious defensesInterest of justiceCivil Procedure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Plaintiff Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, PC. sued defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (NYCMFIC) for overdue first-party no-fault benefits following a brain MRI performed on Abdelghani Kinane. NYCMFIC moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was premature because Elmont allegedly failed to respond to verification requests, thereby tolling NYCMFIC's time to pay or deny the claim. Elmont countered with an affidavit from its billing supervisor, Brijkumar Yamraj, and a certificate of mailing, proving the requested MRI films and information were sent to NYCMFIC on November 12, 2008. The court found Elmont's proof of mailing sufficient to establish a response, thus denying NYCMFIC's motion and subsequently granting summary judgment to Elmont upon searching the record.

No-fault insuranceVerification requestsSummary judgmentProof of mailingMedical benefitsInsurance claims processTolling of time limitMotor vehicle accidentRadiology fee scheduleBusiness records
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Am

Following an initial guardianship proceeding where AM sought to be appointed guardian for AT, who was declared incapacitated, the court appointed TT as personal needs guardian and Frank G. D’Angelo, Jr. as property management guardian on April 2, 2007. AM subsequently filed a motion to reargue, seeking continued access to AT, permission to remain in AT's East Atlantic Beach home with gratuitous transfers, and attorney's fees. The court, in this opinion, re-evaluated its prior interpretation of Mental Hygiene Law § 81.16(f) and granted AM an award of $16,000 in counsel fees from AT's estate. The court also indicated willingness to entertain a schedule for AM's contact with AT, but adjourned the application regarding the real property and gratuitous transfers, pending further submissions and an accounting from AM regarding his management of AT's affairs and the sale of her Beekman Place property.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonReargument MotionMental Hygiene Law Article 81Property ManagementPersonal Needs GuardianFiduciary DutySubstituted JudgmentCounsel FeesEstate Planning
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Pinti

This case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which reversed a referee's decision and determined that emergency medical technicians (EMTs) working for an ambulance service employer were employees, not independent contractors, thus assessing the employer contributions. The central question for review was whether substantial evidence supported the board's conclusion regarding the employer-employee relationship. The court examined the record, noting factors such as EMTs' scheduling, payment structure, lack of business investment, and the employer's provision of liability and workers' compensation insurance. Despite some factors that could support a contrary finding, the court concluded that the board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed without costs.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent Contractor StatusEmergency Medical TechniciansSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate ReviewLabor Law ContributionsAmbulance Service IndustryWorkers' Compensation InsuranceBoard Decision Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Wrobel

This Chapter 13 bankruptcy case involves a dispute between debtor Wrobel and her former matrimonial lawyer, Hogan Willig law firm, regarding an $88,000 fee. Wrobel used funds, partly from the firm's work, to purchase a $75,000 homestead condominium, and the firm objected to her Chapter 13 plan on 'good faith' grounds. The court previously ruled that 11 U.S.C. § 522(o) could not be asserted by the firm and set aside their judgment lien against the homestead. After several amendments, Wrobel proposed a 27% payment plan, offering 'sacrifices' through her adult children's commitment to help. The court found this plan to be 'fundamentally fair' and confirmed it, rejecting all of the firm's objections and certifying the order for immediate appeal.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyGood Faith PlanHomestead ExemptionAttorney Fees DisputeCreditor ObjectionsBankruptcy Planning11 U.S.C. Section 522(o)11 U.S.C. Section 1325(a)(3)11 U.S.C. Section 1325(a)(7)Secured Claims
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,418 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