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
Oct 31, 2003

Coregis Insurance v. McQuade

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied a petition to permanently stay arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim. The respondent, Kevin A. McQuade, a sanitation worker, was injured by an underinsured vehicle. The Supreme Court initially held that McQuade was 'occupying' the sanitation truck, thus qualifying him as an insured under the supplementary underinsured motorists endorsement (SUM). However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that McQuade was not 'occupying' the vehicle at the time of the accident, as his departure was not incidental to a temporary interruption, nor was he in the immediate vicinity or entering the truck. Consequently, McQuade did not qualify as an insured for the SUM endorsement, and the Supreme Court should have granted the petition to stay arbitration.

Arbitration StayUnderinsured MotoristInsurance PolicyVehicle Occupancy DefinitionAppellate Court DecisionNew York LawSUM EndorsementStatutory InterpretationPersonal Injury ClaimTemporary Interruption
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Shutter v. Philips Display Components Co.

The claimant, injured in a work-related single-car accident, received workers' compensation benefits and also pursued an uninsured motorist claim, recovering $124,697.95. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the employer's insurance carrier was entitled to offset this recovery against future compensation benefits, overturning a prior WCLJ decision. The claimant appealed, arguing that Workers' Compensation Law § 29's offset provisions apply only to third-party tortfeasor actions, not uninsured motorist proceeds. The court rejected this argument, finding the statute's general terminology encompasses uninsured motorist benefits and that legislative intent for exclusion only exists for no-fault benefits, not uninsured motorist benefits under Insurance Law § 3420 (f). Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed.

Uninsured motoristWorkers' Compensation LawOffsetInsurance carrierThird-party tortfeasorLien provisionsStatutory interpretationLegislative intentNo-fault insuranceCompensation benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Williams

Amoco Oil appealed two judgments from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning arbitration for uninsured motorist and no-fault benefits. The first judgment, dated January 6, 1977, granted New Hampshire Insurance Company's application to stay arbitration, deeming Amoco Oil's coverage primary and New Hampshire's secondary for uninsured motorist benefits. The second judgment, dated March 30, 1977, permanently stayed arbitration for no-fault benefits under New Hampshire's policy. The Appellate Division affirmed both judgments, concluding that the claimant was "occupying" the Amoco Oil vehicle, making Amoco Oil primarily liable for uninsured motorist benefits. However, the claimant was precluded from receiving these benefits due to already receiving workers' compensation benefits in excess of the maximum, and was also ineligible for no-fault benefits under the New Hampshire policy.

Insurance DisputeArbitration ProceedingsUninsured Motorist CoverageNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' CompensationPrimary vs Secondary LiabilityAppellate DivisionNassau County Supreme CourtVehicle OccupancyBenefit Eligibility
References
3
Case No. E2012-02213-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Dennis Michael Harris, et ux v. Mickey Deanne Haynes

Dennis Michael Harris, a patrolman, was injured when struck by a vehicle. He and his wife sued the driver, vehicle owner, and Tennessee Risk Management Trust (TRMT) for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. TRMT, a governmental self-insurance pool, denied coverage, citing an exclusion for employees receiving workers' compensation. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to TRMT, finding Anderson County was self-insured through TRMT, rendering uninsured/underinsured motorist statutes inapplicable. The appellate court affirmed, upholding that TRMT is not an insurance company, and the Coverage Document's employee exclusion is valid. The court concluded that it is a policy decision for the legislative body of Anderson County, not the court, to decide on providing uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to its employees.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsUninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoverageGovernmental Self-Insurance PoolEmployee ExclusionContract InterpretationSummary Judgment AppealTennessee Court of AppealsRisk Management TrustTort Liability Act
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Insurance v. Watnick

Jay and Marianna Watnick, New York residents, were severely injured in a car accident in Quebec with Jay Anderson. They were insured by Federal Insurance Company under a policy with uninsured and underinsured motorist endorsements. After seeking limited compensation from Quebec's Régie, Federal denied their claims, arguing Anderson's vehicle was neither uninsured nor underinsured, and sought to stay arbitration. The Supreme Court granted Federal's application to stay both claims, but the Appellate Division reversed the stay for the underinsured claim. The Court of Appeals agreed that Anderson's vehicle was not uninsured. However, it disagreed with the Appellate Division on the underinsured claim, ruling that the Watnicks had not exhausted by payment the limits of all applicable bodily insurance policies as required by statute and their policy. Consequently, the Court modified the Appellate Division's order, granting Federal's application to permanently stay arbitration of the underinsured motorist claim, thereby reinstating the Supreme Court's original decision to stay both claims.

Underinsured Motorist CoverageUninsured Motorist EndorsementCar AccidentQuebec Automobile Insurance ActExhaustion of Policy LimitsInsurance LawVehicle and Traffic LawArbitration StayNew York Insurance PolicyInter-jurisdictional Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherlin v. Hall

Plaintiff Teresa D. Sherlin sued Sandra G. Hall for personal injuries and property damage sustained in a head-on collision with an uninsured motorist, Ms. Hall. Sherlin's uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier, Farmers Insurance Exchange, was granted summary judgment by the Trial Court. The Trial Court found that Sherlin was receiving workers' compensation benefits that exceeded the limits of her uninsured motorist policy, and pursuant to the policy's terms and Tennessee law, Farmers had no liability due to the offset. Sherlin appealed, arguing the court should revisit the established law regarding offsets. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Court's decision, stating that Tennessee law is well-settled on the issue of uninsured motorist policy offsets by workers' compensation benefits, and any change in this statutory and case law must originate from the legislature, not an intermediate appellate court.

uninsured motoristworkers' compensation benefitssummary judgmentinsurance policy offsetappellate reviewstatutory interpretationTennessee lawcomparative faultpersonal injuryhead-on collision
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aftor v. Geico Insurance

A petitioner, injured as a minor in an accident with an uninsured vehicle, sought arbitration with Geico Insurance Company under a supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) endorsement after securing a default judgment of $25,000 against the uninsured parties. The arbitrator awarded the petitioner $10,000. The petitioner then sought to vacate the arbitration award in Supreme Court, Kings County, arguing that Geico was obligated to pay the full $25,000 civil judgment. The Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the award. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the petition, and reinstating and confirming the $10,000 arbitration award, emphasizing the limited judicial review of arbitration awards unless specific grounds for vacatur (such as violating public policy or exceeding power) are met.

Arbitration LawInsurance LawUninsured MotoristSUM CoverageJudicial ReviewArbitration Award VacaturAppellate PracticeCivil ProcedureContract InterpretationBodily Injury Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2010

IDS Property Casualty Insurance v. Wynter

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the petitioner's application to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim brought by the respondent. The case involved an accident where the respondent was a passenger in an uninsured vehicle, driven by a fellow employee during a personal errand unrelated to work. The court found that because the accident did not occur within the scope of employment, Workers' Compensation Law § 29 [6] did not provide an exclusive remedy. This decision was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.

uninsured motoristarbitrationstay arbitrationscope of employmentpersonal errandfellow employeeexclusive remedyappellate reviewaffirmance
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Facility (TWCIF) appealed a take-nothing judgment in its suit against Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (Aetna). TWCIF, a workers' compensation carrier, paid benefits to an employee injured in a car accident and sought to assert its subrogation right against Aetna, the employer’s uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance carrier, after Aetna settled with the employee. The trial court ruled against TWCIF, stating it had no viable claim. On appeal, the court determined that TWCIF’s statutory subrogation right extends to claims against an uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance carrier, rejecting Aetna’s arguments regarding the scope of 'third party' and contractual limitations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case, holding that TWCIF is entitled to recover stipulated damages and interest.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationUninsured MotoristUnderinsured MotoristInsurance CarrierStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate ReviewReimbursementDamages
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2016

Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Sherlock

Peter Sherlock died in a car collision with an underinsured driver. His widow, Maria E. Tramontozzi Sherlock, sought supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits from Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). GEICO denied the claim, asserting that the SUM coverage was fully offset by prior settlements received from the tortfeasor's insurer and the Old Brookville defendants' insurer, relying on conditions 6 and 11(e) of the SUM endorsement. GEICO then commenced a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, and the Supreme Court granted GEICO's petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying GEICO's petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court clarified that the non-duplication clause in SUM coverage is intended to prevent double recoveries for the same injuries, not to prevent an insured from obtaining full compensation, and that the amount of SUM coverage should not be reduced without regard to the actual amount of bodily injury damages suffered. Consequently, Tramontozzi Sherlock is entitled to proceed to arbitration.

SUM coverageunderinsured motoristuninsured motoristarbitrationinsurance policybodily injury damagesnon-duplication clauseAppellate DivisionCPLR article 75Insurance Law 60-2.3
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 789 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