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

Claim of Senay v. BH Motto & Co.

Claimant, an outside worker for a plumbing contractor, was injured in an automobile accident while traveling to work. A dispute arose between two insurers, State Insurance Fund (SIF) and National Union Fire Insurance Company, regarding liability for the claimant's workers' compensation benefits. SIF's policy had an exclusion for a specific work site ("I.S. 52 Staten Island N.Y."), while National Union's policy covered "I.S. 52" for Authority projects. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that SIF was liable, interpreting the policies to mean National's policy covered the excluded Staten Island site, while SIF's policy covered the Manhattan site where the claimant was traveling. The Board also concluded that SIF provided primary general coverage compared to National's limited coverage. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding its interpretation of the policy provisions and liability assessment rational.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoveragePolicy ExclusionOff-Site InjuryAutomobile AccidentLiability DisputeAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionRational InterpretationPrimary vs Limited Coverage
References
2
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06668
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2025

Rivera v. Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC

Plaintiff was injured while lifting a heavy gang box into a truck. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this decision, denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and reinstating it. Furthermore, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against specific defendants (Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC, Delancey Street Associates, LLC, and T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC), while otherwise affirming the lower court's order. The court also noted a contradiction in pleadings regarding ownership by one of the defendants, Delancey Street Associates, LLC.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityAppellate DivisionGang Box InjuryConstruction AccidentPleading ContradictionOwner LiabilityWorkplace Safety
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03353 [239 AD3d 688]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2025

Vindell v. Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC

The plaintiff, Deylis Vindell, an employee, was injured at a construction site while removing wood in a muddy, water-filled excavation, causing him to fall. He sued the owners, construction manager, and a subcontractor, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and a portion of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the decision. It reinstated the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, citing conflicting evidence regarding the water's source and whether the plaintiff was hired to remedy that specific defect. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), finding it inapplicable as the plaintiff did not slip or trip and was not using a surface covered by the code.

Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentConstruction Site AccidentMuddy ConditionsExcavation WorkIndustrial Code Violation12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d)Appellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cerbasi v. County Metal & Glass, Inc.

A claimant injured their left arm while working at a New York construction site for a New Jersey employer insured by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJMIC). A dispute arose regarding coverage, with the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board determining the policy covered the accident because New York was not an explicitly excluded state and NJMIC’s attempt to amend the policy was ineffective. NJMIC appealed, arguing the Board erred in its coverage finding and that Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (5) notice requirements did not apply to partial cancellations. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the Board's determination on coverage implicit and that NJMIC failed to demonstrate an effective exclusion or proper cancellation under Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). The court also noted NJMIC's argument regarding partial cancellation was unpreserved.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoveragePolicy ExclusionNew York LawNew Jersey BusinessStatutory ComplianceCancellation NoticeAppellate ReviewJurisdictionLeft Arm Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoffend & Sons, Inc. v. Rose & Kiernan, Inc.

Plaintiff Hoffend & Sons, Inc. sued its insurance broker, Rose & Kiernan, Inc. and its employee Mark Nickel, alleging failure to procure adequate insurance coverage for a foreign construction project in Argentina. Hoffend claimed it specifically requested coverage for property damage and asserted a special relationship with the broker, which would impose a duty to advise. The Court of Appeals found that Hoffend failed to establish either a specific request for the particular coverage or the existence of a special relationship. Citing the precedent of Murphy v Kuhn, the court emphasized that a broker's duty arises from a specific request for coverage or the need to inform the client of an inability to obtain it, and that a general request is insufficient. Consequently, the Appellate Division's dismissal of the complaint against the broker was affirmed.

Insurance BrokerNegligenceInsurance CoverageSpecial RelationshipProperty DamageForeign ConstructionBuilders Risk PolicyAppellate DivisionContract LawProfessional Liability
References
1
Case No. 03 Civ. 0332(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

In Re September 11th Liability Insurance Coverage Cases

This opinion and order addresses two Rule 12(c) motions regarding insurance coverage for the World Trade Center properties following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sought a declaration that it is an "Additional Insured" under Zurich American Insurance Company's policies, while World Trade Center Properties LLC (WTCP) sought a declaration that Zurich is obligated to cover defense costs. The court, presided over by District Judge Hellerstein, denied both motions. It found ambiguity in the binder regarding the Port Authority's "Additional Insured" status, stating that the issue was premature without further discovery. Furthermore, the court held that New York Insurance Regulation 107 does not require rewriting Zurich's binder and policies to include defense costs, considering the unique circumstances, the sophistication of the insured, and the fact that Zurich explicitly excluded defense costs, which Silverstein (WTCP's affiliate) accepted after failing to secure conventional coverage. The court also affirmed supplemental jurisdiction over the insurance claims due to their close relation to the underlying September 11th liability cases.

Insurance CoverageSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterRule 12(c) MotionDeclaratory ReliefAdditional Insured StatusDefense CostsInsurance BinderNew York Insurance LawRegulation 107
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2007

Macro Enterprises, Ltd. v. QBE Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The court declared that the plaintiff is not entitled to defense and indemnity coverage in an underlying third-party action. The decision was based on the plaintiff's failure to notify the defendant insurer for over two years about an employee's injury at a construction site, which constituted noncompliance with a condition precedent to coverage and vitiated the insurance contract. The plaintiff's claimed belief of nonliability, premised on the Workers' Compensation Law, was deemed unreasonable under the circumstances.

Summary JudgmentInsurance CoverageLate NoticeCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawConstruction AccidentIndemnity CoverageDefense CoverageAppellate AffirmationContract Vitiation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2008

AIU Insurance v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The case involves a dispute between two insurers regarding their respective coverage obligations for a mutual insured in an underlying action following a fatal construction site accident. Plaintiff, who insured both the site owner and the subcontractor, sought reimbursement from defendant, who also insured the employer under a workers’ compensation policy, for half of a settlement paid in the underlying action. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to plaintiff, obligating defendant to reimburse plaintiff. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, vacating the judgment and granting summary judgment to defendant. The appellate court ruled that the antisubrogation rule would have compelled the dismissal of any third-party action, thereby precluding plaintiff from obtaining reimbursement from a coinsurer.

Insurance CoverageSubrogationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFatal AccidentCoinsuranceAppellate ReversalUnderlying ActionThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. ADJ559526 (STK 0208625)
Regular
Jan 03, 2011

MICHAEL OZUNA vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether Zurich North America or American Home Assurance Company provided workers' compensation coverage for an applicant's severe injury. An arbitrator initially ruled Zurich solely responsible, finding American Home's policy was limited and did not cover the claim. Zurich contends American Home's policy endorsement limiting coverage to a specific site was invalid due to non-compliance with Insurance Code requirements. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow further proceedings, holding American Home bears the burden to prove its policy effectively excluded this claim.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationArbitrationInsurance CoverageDefense and IndemnificationPolicy EndorsementInsurance Code Section 11657Insurance Code Section 11660Burden of ProofAffirmative of the Issue
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 5,732 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