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

Staub v. William H. Lane, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor (third-party defendant), was injured while working on a building project and initiated an action against the general contractor (defendant) alleging negligence and Labor Law violations. The general contractor subsequently filed a third-party action against the subcontractor, seeking contractual indemnification based on an unsigned written proposal that referenced AIA Contract A401. The Supreme Court partially granted the general contractor's cross-motion for conditional indemnification. The subcontractor appealed this order. The appellate court found that material questions of fact remained regarding whether the parties had genuinely agreed to be bound by the indemnification provisions of AIA Contract A401, particularly because no formal contract was signed and the AIA contract itself was not provided to the general contractor. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's order, denying the general contractor’s cross motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

IndemnificationSubcontractorGeneral ContractorLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentContractual AgreementAIA ContractMeeting of the MindsUnsigned Contract
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2000

New York State Thruway Authority v. CBE Contracting Corp.

This case involves an indemnification action initiated by the owner of a construction project, the New York State Thruway Authority, against a subcontractor. The action arose from personal injuries sustained by a laborer. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and this decision was subsequently affirmed. The defendant's contention that the amendment substituting the New York State Thruway Authority as plaintiff violated due process was rejected by the court. Furthermore, the court found no genuine issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's supervisory control, determining that the laborer was a special employee of the defendant and that the defendant was judicially estopped from asserting otherwise due to a prior action where it successfully argued exclusive control.

Construction accidentIndemnificationSummary judgmentDue processStandingSpecial employeeJudicial estoppelScaffold collapsePersonal injurySubcontractor negligence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Judlau Contracting, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 permits a partially negligent general contractor to enforce an indemnification provision against its subcontractor for damages attributable to the subcontractor's negligence. The plaintiff, Stephen J. Brooks, an ironworker employed by subcontractor Thunderbird Constructors, Inc., sustained injuries and sued the general contractor, Judlau Contracting, Inc. Judlau asserted a third-party claim for contractual indemnification against Thunderbird, which was initially dismissed by lower courts on the grounds that Judlau's partial negligence precluded indemnification under the statute. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute does permit such indemnification as long as the provision does not seek to indemnify the general contractor for its own negligence, but only for that portion attributable to the subcontractor. The court clarified that the phrase 'to the fullest extent permitted by law' limits the subcontractor's obligation to its own negligence, thereby enforcing the indemnification provision and remitting the case for further proceedings.

IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceConstruction AccidentGeneral Obligations LawWorkers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationPartial NegligenceHold Harmless ClauseThird-Party Claim
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 1996

Zeigler-Bonds v. Structure Tone, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order related to a personal injury claim on a construction site. The plaintiff, an employee of an electrical subcontractor, sustained injuries after slipping on a greasy substance and falling down stairs. The initial order denied the subcontractor's motion for summary judgment but granted the general contractor's cross-motion for contractual indemnification. The appellate court modified this decision, affirming the denial of the subcontractor's motion due to remaining factual issues regarding negligence under Labor Law, but denying the general contractor's cross-motion. The denial of the general contractor's motion was based on unresolved questions of its own negligence and the enforceability of the indemnity clause under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationConstruction Site InjurySlip and FallNegligenceLabor LawAppellate DivisionThird-Party ComplaintGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mantovani v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant ADCO Electrical Corp. appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. Concurrently, the defendant third-party plaintiff Herbert G. Martin, Inc., cross-appeals from the same order, which denied its cross-motion for summary judgment on that cause of action. The underlying personal injury action involved an unnamed plaintiff, an employee of ADCO, who was injured while working as a subcontractor for Martin. The Workers' Compensation Law generally precludes indemnification claims against employers, with an exception for express contractual agreements. The court found sufficient evidence of a written contract in the form of a certificate of liability insurance between ADCO and Martin to deny both motions for summary judgment, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the indemnification obligation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionAppealCross-AppealEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor AgreementPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate Affirmation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2005

Duffy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Floor Management, Inc. for personal injuries from a slip and fall on a wet floor inside a Wal-Mart store. Floor Management, a subcontractor for floor cleaning, moved for summary judgment, arguing it had subcontracted its responsibilities to Crystal Clear Nationwide Management and was not actively involved. Wal-Mart cross-moved for contractual indemnification from Floor Management. The Supreme Court denied Floor Management’s motion and partially granted Wal-Mart’s cross-motion, requiring Floor Management to defend Wal-Mart. On cross appeals, the appellate court modified the order, granting Floor Management's motion for summary judgment, finding no liability to plaintiff. The court also granted Wal-Mart's motion for indemnification from Floor Management, applying Arkansas law as per a choice of law provision, and found Floor Management entitled to indemnification from Crystal Clear Nationwide Management.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityIndependent ContractorChoice of LawArkansas LawNegligenceAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1998

Walker v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment entered May 20, 1998, which awarded common-law indemnification to the site owner and general contractor against the plaintiff's employer, a subcontractor, in a laborer's personal injury action. The appellate court found that the trial court properly granted the posttrial motion for indemnification. This decision was based on a jury finding that the owner and general contractor were not negligent and did not direct or control the plaintiff's work, whereas the employer did. The general contractor's contractual authority to enforce general safety standards was not considered sufficient to establish requisite supervision or control of the plaintiff's specific work. Furthermore, the employer's express assumption of primary responsibility for worker safety in its subcontract was noted, and its argument regarding the jury's lack of an express ruling on the general contractor’s supervision was rejected, given that such a question was not requested and the finding of no negligence implied no supervision.

Common-law indemnificationThird-party actionPersonal injuriesLabor LawNegligenceSite owner liabilityGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor employerSupervision and controlWorker safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 1996

Werner v. East Meadow Union Free School District

The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied cross motions for summary judgment on indemnification filed by HEC, Inc. and Power Authority of the State of New York against J. P. Daly & Sons, Inc. The plaintiff in the underlying action sustained injuries after falling from scaffolding while upgrading lighting fixtures. The plaintiff sued East Meadow Union Free School District and HEC, Inc. under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court reversed the order, conditionally granting summary judgment to HEC, Inc. and Power Authority. The decision held that an owner or general contractor vicariously liable under Labor Law § 240 is entitled to common-law indemnification from a subcontractor whose negligence was the sole cause of injury. The court found that HEC, Inc. and Power Authority did not control the work, and J. P. Daly & Sons, Inc. solely controlled, erected, and maintained the scaffolding.

IndemnificationSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffolding AccidentVicarious LiabilityCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractor NegligenceConstruction Site InjuryAppellate ReversalThird-Party Action
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Canka v. Coalition for Homeless, Inc.

Shaban Canka, an employee of subcontractor 786 Iron Works Corp., sustained serious injuries after falling three stories through an unprotected stairwell opening at a construction site. The building was owned by Coalition for the Homeless, Inc., with B & J General Contractors, Inc. as the general contractor, who then subcontracted work to Cosa Development Corp. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability against the owner, general contractor, and subcontractor, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241-a. Additionally, summary judgment for common-law indemnification was granted to Coalition and B & J against 786 Iron Works Corp., as they were held vicariously liable without directing or controlling the work. 786 Iron Works Corp. appealed these orders, but the appellate court affirmed all orders, including the denial of further discovery.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawStatutory LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityFall from Height
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buccini v. 1568 Broadway Associates

The appellate court reversed a lower court order denying summary judgment to 1568 Broadway, Inc., Manhattan Suites Realty Corp., and HRH Construction Corp. (collectively, "appellants"), who were general partners and a construction manager. Appellants had sought contractual and common-law indemnification, as well as damages for breach of an insurance procurement clause, from Marine Contractors, Inc., a subcontractor. This stemmed from an injury sustained by Anthony Buccini, a Marine employee, who successfully sued the appellants under Labor Law § 240. The appellate court found appellants were entitled to indemnification because their liability was statutory and not based on their own negligence, with Marine primarily responsible for worker safety. Additionally, Marine was found to have breached its contract by failing to name appellants as additional insureds.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractInsurance ProcurementThird-Party Action
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,448 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