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

Rapid Settlements Ltd. v. SSC Settlements, LLC

This case involves an appeal and mandamus proceeding filed by Rapid Settlements, Ltd. and Rapid Management Corporation (Rapid) against SSC Settlements, L.L.C. and Stone Street Capital, Inc. (SSC). Rapid challenged a final summary judgment related to the transfer of structured settlement payments from William Prante. Rapid sought to stay litigation pending arbitration, arguing the dispute with SSC fell under an arbitration clause in their agreement with Prante, which also included a right of first refusal and a security interest. The appellate court denied the mandamus petition, vacated the trial court's denial of Rapid's motion to stay, and reversed parts of the summary judgment concerning Rapid's security interest and right of first refusal. The court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to SSC and its injunction preventing Rapid from compelling SSC to arbitrate.

Arbitration AgreementMandamus ProceedingSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentStructured SettlementRight of First RefusalSecurity InterestEquitable EstoppelDirect Benefits EstoppelContract Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Symetra Life Insurance v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd.

This case involves the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) seeking a permanent injunction against Rapid Settlements, Ltd., a factoring company. NASP alleged that Rapid Settlements improperly uses arbitration and enforces rights of first refusal and security interests in structured settlement payment rights without state-court approval, thereby circumventing state Structured Settlement Protection Acts (SSPAs). The court found that Rapid Settlements' practices illegally circumvent the SSPAs, cloud title to annuitants' payment rights, raise transaction costs for NASP members, and place them at a competitive disadvantage. The court rejected Rapid Settlements' defenses, including preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act and an 'unclean hands' argument against NASP. The court granted NASP's application, permanently enjoining Rapid Settlements from using arbitration or enforcing unapproved rights of first refusal and security interests to effectuate transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

Structured SettlementsFactoring CompaniesAnnuity PaymentsArbitrationInjunctionState LawFederal LawStructured Settlement Protection ActsRights of First RefusalSecurity Interests
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. 14-07-00880-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2009

Symetra National Life Insurance Company and Symetra Life Insurance Company v. Rapid Settlements, LTD

Symetra National Life Insurance Co. and Symetra Life Insurance Co. appealed a trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award that directed them to make structured settlement payments to Rapid Settlements, Ltd., instead of the original payee, Paul Patterson. Symetra argued that the transfer lacked the required court approval under the Texas Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA) and violated public policy, while Rapid Settlements asserted it was not a 'transfer' under SSPA, federal law preempted SSPA, and Symetra lacked standing. The court rejected Rapid's arguments, emphasizing that the SSPA mandates court preapproval for structured settlement payment transfers to protect payees and their dependents. Consequently, the court held that the arbitration award violated Texas public policy by effectuating an unapproved transfer. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the arbitration award was vacated.

Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)PreemptionStandingGarnishmentTransfer of PaymentsAnnuity IssuerTexas Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bopp v. Wiest

This is a case of first impression concerning the application of a workers' compensation lien to a wrongful death settlement involving beneficiaries who are not statutory dependents. The decedent's estate received $50,000 in workers' compensation benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (4-b) following a workplace death, as there were no dependents. The estate's coexecutrices secured a $60,000 wrongful death settlement on behalf of the decedent's adult children. Liberty Mutual, the workers' compensation carrier, asserted a lien against this settlement. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, ruled that the 1990 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (4-b) made the distinction between dependents and distributees irrelevant in this context. Consequently, the court approved the settlement but confirmed that the proceeds are subject to Liberty Mutual's workers' compensation lien, ensuring that adult children receiving benefits through the estate do not have a superior position to minor dependents receiving direct benefits.

wrongful deathworkers' compensationliensettlementstatutory interpretationdependentsdistributeesNew York lawfirst impressionsubrogation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

President & Directors of the Manhattan Co. v. Janowitz

Julius Janowitz created an inter vivos trust in 1933, subsequently modified four times. Following his death in 1937, the trustee initiated an action for judicial settlement of accounts, while his widow, Emma S. Janowitz, challenged the will and trust validity based on her rights under the Decedent Estate Law. The court addressed whether later trust amendments could be incorporated by reference into the will and if the trust was illusory. It affirmed the validity of the will's third paragraph, incorporating the initial trust and the first three amendments but excluding the fourth. Although the trust was found to be illusory against the widow's rights due to donor control, the court ultimately upheld the trust's overall validity, nullifying only the third amendment's $5,000 annual income limitation for the widow to safeguard her interests. An interlocutory decree was issued.

Inter Vivos TrustWill ContestDecedent Estate LawRight of ElectionIllusory TrustIncorporation by ReferenceTrust AmendmentWidow's RightsEstate PlanningTestamentary Disposition
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2002

Hynes v. Start Elevator, Inc.

A former employee and his wife sued Start Elevator after the employee was injured in an elevator accident. Start Elevator then filed third-party complaints against 410-57th Corp., the building owner and employer, and Carmela Maresca, the managing agent. The third-party defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the workers' compensation settlement barred the third-party actions and that Maresca was a coemployee. Start Elevator cross-moved to amend its complaint for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment and granted leave to amend. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants, dismissing the third-party complaints, and denying Start Elevator's cross-motion for leave to amend, finding no grave injury and insufficient basis for contractual indemnification.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party ActionsContractual IndemnificationElevator AccidentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCoemployee ImmunityGrave Injury ExceptionLeave to Amend PleadingsRes Judicata / Estoppel
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyle v. Texasgulf Aviation, Inc.

This opinion by District Judge Goettel addresses motions within the long-standing "Texasgulf cases," stemming from a 1981 corporate aircraft crash, primarily focusing on a workers' compensation lien. Plaintiff Boyle moved to extinguish or reduce a lien held by Zurich-American Insurance Companies, while Texasgulf cross-moved to amend pleadings to join as a plaintiff to apportion damages under Connecticut law. The court determined that Connecticut law governs the workers' compensation lien issues for the Connecticut residents involved, denying the plaintiffs' request for New York law. However, Texasgulf's motion to amend its pleadings was denied due to undue and unjustified delay of over four years since a key jury finding establishing its corporate independence from TGA, and after all appeals and settlements had concluded. The court emphasized that allowing such a late amendment would be contrary to judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments, despite the ambiguity of Connecticut's statutory notice requirements.

Workers' Compensation LienChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawRule 15 AmendmentUndue DelayPrejudiceCorporate VeilWrongful Death StatuteAircraft Crash Litigation
References
24
Case No. SA-01-CA-1010-FB
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2007

Dehoyos v. Allstate Corp.

Before the Court is the issue of the disapproval or approval of the proposed settlement in this class action brought under federal civil rights laws and the Fair Housing Act which has been pending before this Court for over five years. Plaintiffs sued the Allstate defendants alleging deficiencies in Allstate’s credit scoring procedure which plaintiffs say resulted in discriminatory action against approximately 5 million African-American and Hispanic customers throughout the United States. Allstate denies these allegations. After a thorough review, the Court finds the proposed settlement to be fair and reasonable for the reasons stated below and approves the same. The Court also finds the proposed award of attorneys’ fees is reasonable and should not be reduced.

Class ActionCivil RightsFair Housing ActRace DiscriminationCredit ScoringInsurance PremiumsSettlement ApprovalInjunctive ReliefMonetary ReliefAttorneys' Fees
References
175
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Findley v. Falise

This 'AMENDED MEMORANDUM, ORDER, AND JUDGMENT' addresses an unresolved issue from a class action settlement against the Manville Trust, concerning the allocation of payment responsibility under Maryland law. Following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the New York district and bankruptcy courts were mandated to predict how the Maryland Court of Appeals would apply set-off principles to this unique settlement. The courts considered arguments from various parties, including proposals for treating the Manville Trust, which is solvent but unable to fully meet its liabilities. Ultimately, the decision was to interpret Maryland law as excluding the Manville Trust from pro rata share calculations for other settling defendants, while crediting amounts settled by the Trust to non-settling joint tortfeasors. This ruling, detailed in Part V.A of the Order, aims to equitably balance the interests of all parties while adhering to Maryland law principles given the distinct circumstances of the Trust.

Asbestos LitigationClass Action SettlementManville TrustMaryland LawSet-off PrinciplesJoint TortfeasorsFederal Court JurisdictionAbstention DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentTort Law
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 6,667 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