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

Tower Insurance v. Classon Heights, LLC

This case is a declaratory judgment action regarding an insurance coverage disclaimer based on late notice of a personal injury claim. Plaintiff Tower Insurance issued a liability policy to Classon Heights and Renaissance Realty, who were notified of an accident involving Elizabeth Gonzalez on their premises in October 2006. Despite knowing about the incident where Gonzalez fell and was taken to a hospital, the insureds waited five months, until March 2007, to notify Tower Insurance. Tower Insurance subsequently disclaimed coverage due to the untimely notice and initiated this action to declare it had no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Tower Insurance, concluding that a five-month delay was untimely as a matter of law and the insureds' belief in nonliability was unreasonable given their immediate knowledge of Gonzalez's fall and hospital transport.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageLate Notice of ClaimPersonal InjuryDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentDuty to NotifyPolicy ConditionsTimeliness of NoticeReasonable Belief
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05661 [221 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Keilitz v. Light Tower Fiber N.Y., Inc.

Christopher Keilitz, an electrician working for Hellman Electric Corp., was injured when a vacuum fell into a manhole and struck him during the installation of fiber optic cables. Keilitz sued Light Tower Fiber New York, Inc., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., and Empire City Subway (ECS) under New York Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially denied Keilitz's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims and dismissed claims against the defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Keilitz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against ECS and Light Tower. The court determined that Keilitz's work constituted an 'altering' activity under the statute and that the falling vacuum presented an elevation-related risk, rendering other related claims moot.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskManhole AccidentFiber Optic InstallationAlteration WorkAppellate DivisionThird-Party ClaimContractual Indemnification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2006

In re Tower Automotive, Inc.

Federal Insurance Company objected to a Bankruptcy Court order that recommended granting summary judgment to Tower Automotive, Inc. on Federal's obligation to pay defense costs for ERISA actions. Tower commenced the action seeking a declaration of insurance coverage for lawsuits related to its employee benefit plans. Federal denied coverage, citing an exclusion in its Fiduciary Liability Policy after Securities Actions were filed. The District Court, applying Michigan law, found both parties' interpretations of the exclusion reasonable but, due to ambiguity, construed the clause against Federal. Consequently, the District Court overruled Federal's objections and granted summary judgment in favor of Tower, affirming Federal's duty to defend.

ERISAFiduciary Liability InsuranceInsurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentPolicy Exclusion InterpretationContract LawMichigan Insurance LawFederal Court ReviewBankruptcy Court Findings
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dean v. Tower Insurance

Plaintiffs Douglas and Joanna Dean purchased a home and obtained a homeowners' insurance policy from Tower Insurance Company of New York. Following the discovery of extensive termite damage, the plaintiffs undertook significant repairs, preventing them from immediately moving into the property. Before they could establish full residency, a fire completely destroyed the house. Tower Insurance Company disclaimed coverage, asserting the dwelling was unoccupied and thus did not qualify as a 'residence premises' under the policy's terms. The court found that the term 'residence premises,' defined only as 'where you reside' and with 'reside' undefined, was ambiguous in these circumstances, precluding summary judgment for the insurer. The decision highlighted factual issues regarding Douglas Dean's daily presence at the property and his intent to move in, citing other legal interpretations of occupancy in insurance contexts. The Appellate Division's order, which found the policy ambiguous, was affirmed.

Homeowners InsurancePolicy InterpretationContract AmbiguityResidency RequirementOccupancy ClauseFire DamageDisclaimer of CoverageSummary Judgment StandardsInsurance Contract BreachProperty Insurance
References
12
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04470
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Powers v. Plaza Tower, LLC

Plaintiff William Powers was injured after falling through a dismantled catwalk on the roof of a building owned by Plaza Tower, LLC, while installing a window washing scaffold. Plaza had retained plaintiff's employer, Global BMU, LLC, for the work. The Supreme Court denied Plaza's motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Global and granted Global's motion to dismiss the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the accident was due to Plaza's sole negligence for failing to maintain a safe premises or warn of hazards, and that Global and Powers were not negligent.

Premises liabilitySummary judgmentContractual indemnificationNegligenceCatwalk collapseBuilding ownerWarning signsDuty to maintainAppellate DivisionWorker injury
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07295 [211 AD3d 605]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Itara v. Masaryk Towers Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of third-party defendant Centennial Elevator Industries, Inc., was injured when a staircase step collapsed while he was performing elevator repair work at a building owned by defendant Masaryk Towers Corporation. Masaryk brought third-party claims against Centennial for contribution, common-law indemnification, and contractual indemnification, as well as breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Supreme Court dismissed all third-party claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of the contribution, common-law indemnification, and breach of contract claims, finding no "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 and sufficient insurance procurement. However, the Court modified the order by reinstating the claim for contractual indemnification, ruling that it was improperly dismissed as the accident arose from Centennial's work and General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1) allows for proportional indemnification.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilityThird-Party ClaimContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawBreach of Contract
References
2
Case No. ADJ7781702; ADJ7781654; ADJ7781697
Regular
Sep 22, 2022

ANA ALVARADO vs. YUM YUM DONUT SHOPS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Tower Imaging DBA Tower Copy sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision finding their petition for medical-legal expenses untimely and the services not reasonably incurred. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the matter. Subsequently, Tower Copy and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company entered into a stipulation to settle the disputed $7,539.82 balance for $3,000.00. The WCAB approved this stipulation, rescinding the prior findings and ordering the settlement as full and final resolution of the dispute.

WCABTower ImagingTower Copymedical-legal expensesPetition for Determination of Non-IBR Medical Legal Disputeuntimely filedreasonablyactuallyand necessarily incurredStipulation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galindo v. Dorchester Tower Condominium

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied motions for summary judgment related to a plaintiff's 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, involving third-party defendant Vanlo Inc. and defendants Dorchester Tower Condominium, et al. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court granted Dorchester summary judgment on its indemnification claims against Vanlo, affirming other aspects. The court found Vanlo failed to prove the plaintiff did not suffer a grave injury, citing extensive medical evidence of traumatic brain injury and unemployability. Dorchester's indemnification was granted due to a lack of evidence of its negligence or control over the plaintiff's work. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationTraumatic Brain InjuryEmployabilityAppellate ReviewBronx CountySupreme CourtEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blyer v. Pratt Towers, Inc.

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a petition for a temporary injunction against Pratt Towers, Inc. The Regional Director sought immediate interim reinstatement for employees refused re-employment after a strike and required Pratt to bargain in good faith with Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union. Pratt had denied reinstatement, citing an illegal strike and employee misconduct. The court found reasonable cause to believe Pratt committed unfair labor practices by refusing to reinstate employees and by bargaining in bad faith. The court concluded that injunctive relief was just and proper to restore the status quo and prevent further erosion of the Union's effectiveness. The petition for injunctive relief was granted, ordering Pratt to reinstate employees, bargain with the Union, and post the order.

Collective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticeInjunctive ReliefStrike MisconductReinstatementGood Faith BargainingLabor DisputeNational Labor Relations ActUnion DecertificationTemporary Injunction
References
34
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01740 [214 AD3d 590]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

Galicia v. Asrar

Lucio Galicia, injured in an accident, received workers' compensation benefits from Tower Insurance Company. Defendant tendered a settlement offer of $25,000. Galicia's attorney, Friedman, was to receive $8,333, and Tower the remainder, but Galicia declined the settlement. Tower intervened to protect its lien. Friedman moved for discharge and a charging lien of $8,333.33, representing his share of the rejected settlement. The Supreme Court granted Friedman's motion for a charging lien. The Appellate Division reversed this order, stating the motion court erred as the sum never attached to a settlement or judgment. The court also noted it was unclear how much work Friedman did or the amount of recovery. Tower was not estopped from opposing Friedman's claim as its position was consistent and it received no benefit from its prior position.

Charging LienWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAttorney FeesEquitable ApportionmentSettlement RejectionIntervenorQuantum MeruitStatutory LienAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 280 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