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. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. ADJ3390481 (LBO 0329915), ADJ4485849 (LBO 0338530), ADJ4560133 (LBO 0338531)
Regular
Aug 20, 2018

GILDARDO PATINO vs. TERRA PAVE, INC.; ARROWOOD, INDEMNITY COMPANY; STATE, COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by Terra Pave, Inc. and Arrowood Indemnity Company. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's reasoning, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would justify this extraordinary remedy. They also noted that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision proves adverse. Furthermore, the case is already set for trial, providing an opportunity to address the issues raised in the petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedysupplemental petitionCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10848Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10843(a)
References
2
Case No. Index No. 157377/14|Appeal No. 5542|Case No. 2024-06740
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2026

Watson v. Intercounty Paving Assoc., LLC

This case involves plaintiffs Jane Martin Watson et al. suing Intercounty Paving Associates, LLC, Royal Guard Fence Co., Inc., and others after Jane Martin Watson tripped over temporary bolts. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment against Royal Guard Fence Co., Inc. (RGF) and granted Intercounty Paving Associates, LLC's (IPA) cross-motion for summary judgment for contractual indemnification from RGF. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding that RGF failed to rebut testimony that its employees placed the hazardous bolts and that the injury arose out of RGF's work, triggering the indemnification clause in the subcontract between RGF and IPA.

summary judgmentcontractual indemnificationhazardous conditionnegligencepremises liabilityconstruction sitesubcontractappellate reviewtort lawevidentiary standards
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2009

Tullino v. Pyramid Companies

The case involves an appeal by third-party defendant Terra Firma Construction Corp. from an order denying its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. The underlying action concerns personal injuries sustained by a plaintiff due to exposure to fireproofing material at a construction site. Third-party plaintiffs, including premises owners and contractors, brought an indemnification claim against Terra Firma, the injured plaintiff's employer. Terra Firma argued there was no contractual indemnification agreement. The Supreme Court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether a purchase order and an unsigned "Appendix A" constituted a binding indemnification agreement between Terra Firma and third-party plaintiff HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that a factual dispute existed regarding the parties' intent to be bound by Appendix A.

Workers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury DamagesThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentExpress AgreementPurchase OrderSubcontract Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1986

Leonard Engineering, Inc. v. Zephyr Petroleum Corp.

In an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, plaintiff Leonard Engineering, Inc. appealed an order that granted defendant New York Paving, Inc.'s motion to discharge the lien and dismiss the complaint, and denied Leonard's cross-motion to amend the lien. Leonard had provided engineering services to defendant Zephyr Petroleum Corporation, which then conveyed the property to New York Paving, Inc. with a trust fund provision in the deed, before Leonard filed its lien. The lien was subsequently filed with an incorrect lot number. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the lien was ineffective against New York Paving due to the Lien Law § 13 (5) trust fund provision in the deed, which protected the purchaser. Consequently, Leonard's appeal to amend the notice of lien was dismissed as academic.

Mechanic's LienLien LawForeclosureTrust Fund ProvisionReal PropertyDeed CovenantNotice of LienLien AmendmentMisdescriptionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glunt v. ABC Paving Co.

This case involves a negligence and wrongful death action arising from a motor vehicle accident where a trucker, employed by Roadway Express, Inc., was killed. The plaintiff received Ohio workers’ compensation benefits and subsequently sued ABC Paving Company, Inc., and two employees. The defendants then brought a third-party action against Roadway for contribution, which was initially dismissed by the Supreme Court based on Ohio law. On appeal, the court applied New York's choice-of-law rules, specifically the Neumeier rules for loss-allocating rules, determining that the place of injury (New York) governs in this 'true' conflict situation. Consequently, New York law permits the third-party action for contribution, leading to the modification and affirmation of the lower court's order.

NegligenceWrongful DeathMotor Vehicle AccidentThird-Party ActionContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsChoice of LawConflict of LawsNeumeier Rules
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2009

Timmons v. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc.

The case involves appeals from a judgment concerning injuries sustained by Joseph Timmons on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to Labor Law claims (action No. 1) and a dispute over insurance coverage (action No. 2). The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to Barrett, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and § 200 claims, was affirmed on appeal, with the court concluding these statutes were inapplicable to the accident's circumstances. Furthermore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that Schneider Brothers Corporation had a duty to defend Barrett in the Timmons action and that Barrett was an additional insured under Colony Insurance Company's policy.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectIndemnification AgreementAdditional InsuredWorkers' CompensationIndustrial Code ViolationContractual Duty to Defend
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cordeiro v. Shalco Investments

Fabio Cordeiro was injured when he fell from an elevated steel beam during a garage renovation project. He claimed the defendant, Hicksville Paving, Inc., failed to provide adequate safety devices, violating Labor Law § 240 (1). Hicksville contended that Cordeiro was provided with safety equipment and that his fall resulted from a voluntary detour for a non-work-related purpose (walking on the beam as a shortcut). Hicksville also raised an issue of fact regarding Cordeiro's employment status, suggesting he might have been their employee or a special employee, which would invoke the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to his claims. The court found that Hicksville raised triable issues of fact concerning both the proximate cause of the fall under Labor Law § 240 (1) and whether Cordeiro was an employee of Hicksville, concluding that summary judgment should have been denied to the plaintiff.

construction accidentfall from heightLabor Law 240(1)summary judgmentproximate causeworkers' compensationspecial employeeelevated worksafety devicesappellate review
References
6
Case No. 15 Civ. 7268 (PAE)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2016

Johnson v. Carlo Lizza & Sons Paving, Inc.

Plaintiffs Donald Little and Terrence Johnson allege that defendants, companies and an individual in the paving business, failed to pay overtime and prevailing wages as required by federal and state labor law for their work as "flagmen" on New York City public works projects. Plaintiffs also claim third-party beneficiary status to contracts requiring prevailing wages. The court addressed plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action and defendants' motion to dismiss breach-of-contract and quasi-contract claims. The court granted conditional certification for a class of flagmen and other construction employees and denied defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that administrative remedies were not exclusive for breach-of-contract claims and that the claims were adequately pled.

FLSANYLLWage and Hour DisputeOvertimePrevailing WageBreach of ContractQuasi-ContractCollective ActionConditional CertificationMotion to Dismiss
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hutchinson v. Fahs-Rolston Paving Co.

Fahs-Rolston Paving Company appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that held them solely liable for workers’ compensation benefits paid to a claimant. The claimant, an employee of Fahs-Rolston, suffered a heart attack while operating specialized hydrodemolition machinery that Fahs-Rolston subcontracted from Flow Services, Inc. Fahs-Rolston argued the claimant was a 'special employee' of Flow Services at the time of injury, thereby shifting liability. However, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that Fahs-Rolston remained the claimant's general employer. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the Board’s decision, citing Fahs-Rolston’s control over the claimant's work, salary, and right to hire or fire.

Workers' CompensationGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployeeLiability DisputeSubcontractorEmployment RelationshipHeart AttackAppellate ReviewControl TestWorkers' Compensation Board
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 38 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