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
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. 02 Civ. 5571(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses defendants' motion for partial summary judgment concerning plaintiffs' standing in a securities litigation against Vivendi Universal S.A., Jean-Marie Messier, and Guillaume Hannezo. The central issue is whether various investment management companies, suing on behalf of investment funds and their investors, possess constitutional standing under the "Huff exception." The court examines the legal structures of numerous foreign investment vehicles from Germany, Luxembourg, France, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, and Denmark. It concludes that most management companies for German, Luxembourgian FCPs, French FCPs, Belgian FCPs, Swedish, and Austrian funds satisfy the Huff exception, denying summary judgment against them. However, the court grants summary judgment against Danish investment companies, finding their relationship with the Associations does not meet the exception's requirements. The opinion also rules that post-filing assignments or substitutions under Rule 17 FRCP can cure standing defects, allowing plaintiffs time to amend their complaints.

Securities LitigationStandingSummary JudgmentInvestment FundsManagement CompaniesArticle III StandingHuff ExceptionRule 17 FRCPClass ActionVivendi Universal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gilbane Building Co. v. Keystone Structural Concrete, Ltd.

Appellants Gilbane Building Company and Zurich American Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee Keystone Structural Concrete LTD. Gilbane, as a general contractor, had subcontracted Keystone for a construction project. A Keystone employee was injured and sued Gilbane for negligence, settling for $2 million. Gilbane, having paid $1 million of the settlement, then sued Keystone for breach of a contractual indemnity agreement, breach of contract for not providing primary insurance coverage, and breach of contractual safety obligations. Gilbane also sought reformation of the contract and claimed Keystone failed to disclose another insurance policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that the indemnity provision was unenforceable under the express negligence rule, there was no breach of contract regarding insurance priority or safety duties, and Keystone had no duty to inform Gilbane of the additional insurance policy.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnityBreach of ContractExpress Negligence RuleInsurance CoverageSubcontractor LiabilityConstruction ProjectWorkers' CompensationContract ReformationDuty to Inform
References
28
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04941 [208 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2022

Ruisech v. Structure Tone Inc.

This personal injury action arises from a construction site accident where plaintiff, an A-Val Architectural Metal III, LLC employee, slipped on pebbles. The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to several defendants (Park, CBRE, and Structure Tone Inc.) on claims related to Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200, and common-law negligence. The court determined that the Industrial Code regulations cited were inapplicable and that the defendants lacked supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Additionally, the court ruled on various contractual indemnification claims, finding certain indemnification clauses enforceable while others were not due to ambiguity or lack of negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon Law NegligenceWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MDL-1206
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1999

In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation

This order approves eight settlement agreements in the multidistrict litigation, In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1206. The litigation involves claims by royalty and working interest owners against major oil companies for systematically underpaying for crude oil by depressing 'posted prices' below market value. The class comprises millions of members across the US, asserting both state law 'Lease Claims' and federal 'Antitrust Claims' of price-fixing. The court addresses jurisdiction, class certification under Rule 23, the fairness and adequacy of the settlements, and issues related to notice, claim procedures, attorneys' fees, and incentive awards.

Antitrust LawClass Action SettlementOil and Gas RoyaltiesMultidistrict LitigationPrice Fixing ConspiracyFairness DoctrineRule 23 CertificationSupplemental JurisdictionDue Process RightsAttorney's Fees Award
References
71
Case No. 01-05-00988-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

Gilbane Building Company and Zurich American Insurance Company v. Keystone Structural Concrete, Ltd. and Royal Insurance Company of America

Gilbane Building Company and Zurich American Insurance Company appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Keystone Structural Concrete, LTD. The core issues involved a contractual indemnity claim and several breach of contract claims stemming from an injury to a Keystone employee on a construction project. Gilbane sought to recover a $1 million settlement it paid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the indemnity agreement was unenforceable due to its failure to satisfy the express negligence test. Furthermore, the court found no breach regarding insurance priorities, safety obligations, or a duty to inform Gilbane about an additional insurance policy, thereby denying Gilbane's attempts to reform the contract or recover damages.

Contractual IndemnityBreach of ContractSummary Judgment ReviewExpress Negligence RuleInsurance Coverage DisputeSubrogationContract ReformationMutual MistakeTexas Labor CodeConstruction Subcontract
References
29
Case No. 04-24-00797-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride

Eunice Villanueva appealed a summary judgment favoring Structural Repair, LLC and other appellees, stemming from a dispute over foundation repair. An initial arbitration between Villanueva and Advanced Foundation Repair, L.P. resulted in an award for Villanueva on a DTPA violation, which was subsequently confirmed by the trial court. Villanueva then sued the appellees, who were related to Advanced Foundation, asserting similar claims of fraud and DTPA violations. The appellees successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing res judicata based on the prior arbitration. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the arbitration award constituted a final judgment, the appellees were in privity with Advanced Foundation, and the claims were identical to those previously litigated, thus satisfying all elements of res judicata. The court also clarified that Villanueva's attempt to pierce the corporate veil did not introduce a new substantive claim precluding summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentAppealRes JudicataArbitration AwardPrivityCorporate VeilTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActFoundation RepairFraudCivil Procedure
References
17
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05941
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2025

Grala v. Structural Preserv. Sys., LLC

This case involves a consolidated action for personal injuries filed by Pawel Grala and his wife against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (Structural) and New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Structural subsequently filed a third-party action against Apex Development, Inc. (Grala's employer) and Maciej Witczak. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning motions for summary judgment on claims of contractual and common-law indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and Apex's counterclaims. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants on the cause of action alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance against Apex. In all other respects, the Supreme Court's order, which denied other branches of the third-party defendants' motion and granted the cross-motion to dismiss Apex's counterclaims, was affirmed.

Personal InjuryWorksite AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law
References
22
Case No. 00 Civ. 1898, M21-88, MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation

This opinion and order denies Orange County Water District's (OCWD) motion to remand its action to state court. OCWD, a plaintiff in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving water contamination by MTBE, argued that its case was improperly removed from state court under bankruptcy statutes. The District Court, presided over by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, found that OCWD's motion to remand was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because it was filed more than 30 days after the notice of removal. The court emphasized that improper removal is a procedural defect, waivable if not challenged within 30 days, while a lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. As the court retained core bankruptcy jurisdiction, the motion was denied, highlighting Congress's intent to prevent late-stage forum shopping and ensure efficient litigation in MDLs.

Multidistrict LitigationMTBE ContaminationWater PollutionRemoval JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionBankruptcy LawRemand MotionProcedural DefectWaiver28 U.S.C. 1447(c)
References
25
Case No. 01-1122
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2003

Page v. Structural Wood Components, Inc.

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed when "work is completed" under Property Code Chapter 53 for perfecting a construction subcontractor's lien on retained funds. Petitioner Herman C. Page terminated his general contractor's agreement, and subcontractor Structural Wood Components, Inc. filed a lien affidavit 31 days later, but before subsequent contractors finished the project. The Court reversed the appellate court's judgment, holding that "work is completed" for the purpose of timely filing a lien affidavit when the specific contract is terminated or abandoned, not when the entire construction project is ultimately finished by other parties. Consequently, Structural Wood's affidavit was deemed untimely, and the judgment was rendered that the subcontractor take nothing.

Construction LawMechanic's LienMaterialman's LienProperty CodeContract TerminationSubcontractor RightsRetainage FundsStatutory InterpretationTimely FilingAppellate Review
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,699 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