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. 12-09-00390-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2010

Trussell Insurance Services, Inc. and Employment Management Service, LLC v. Image Solutions, Inc.

Trussell Insurance Services, Inc. and Employment Management Service, LLC (Trussell) appealed the denial of their motion for sanctions against Image Solutions, Inc. (Image). The underlying dispute originated from a worker's injury, where Image sought workers' compensation coverage through a policy procured by Trussell, which was subsequently denied due to the insurer's insolvency. Image then filed third-party claims against Trussell for negligence and breach of contract, leading Trussell to counterclaim for sanctions. Despite both parties acknowledging the necessity of an evidentiary hearing for the sanctions motion, none was conducted. The appellate court determined that Trussell waived its right to sanctions by failing to secure an evidentiary hearing and by participating in a non-evidentiary one. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the sanctions motion was affirmed.

SanctionsSummary JudgmentEvidentiary HearingWaiverTexas Civil ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeWorkers' CompensationInsurance LitigationAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
19
Case No. ADJ9237052
Regular
Apr 12, 2019

ANGELICA BERMUDEZ vs. JACK IN THE BOX, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petitioner's (Tower Imaging) Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The WCJ had rejected Tower Imaging's petition for non-IBR dispute resolution due to its failure to appear at a lien conference. The Board found that Tower Imaging was denied due process and a fair hearing. The Board also admonished Tower Imaging's representative for misleading statements in the petition.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rejecting Petition for Non-IBR DisputeDue ProcessFair HearingSubstantial JusticePetition for DeterminationLien ConferenceWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and Release
References
5
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. E2019-00335-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2019

Carl Wayne Hixson v. American Towers, LLC

The Hixsons and All Things Fast Motorsports, LLC sued American Towers, LLC regarding an easement dispute over property experiencing slope failures and mudslides. The trial court initially found both parties equally at fault for maintenance issues, awarding damages to All Things Fast and the Hixsons, and ordering joint payment for a remediation plan. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court's declaratory judgment, assigning the primary maintenance duty for the easement to American Towers, LLC and for the surrounding hillside to the Hixsons. The appellate court vacated the damages awarded to All Things Fast and remanded for a reallocation of comparative fault, while affirming the remediation plan and the equal sharing of its costs.

Easement DisputeSlope FailureProperty DamageDeclaratory JudgmentNegligenceBreach of Easement AgreementTrespassComparative FaultRemediation PlanAppellate Review
References
56
Case No. 2022-06-0311
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2023

Burke, Timothy v. Steve Towers Enterprises, LLC, a/k/a Steve Towers Holding, LLC

Timothy Burke, an employee of Steve Towers Enterprises, LLC, sought workers' compensation benefits after being accidentally shot by a coworker, Josh Daniels, during work hours. The incident occurred when Mr. Daniels was showing Mr. Burke a gun he intended to sell. Steve Towers Enterprises filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the injury did not arise primarily out of Burke's employment, as the activity of selling a gun was unrelated to the employer's vehicle repair business. Judge Kenneth M. Switzer granted the summary judgment motion, concluding that there was no causal connection between the employment conditions and the injury. Consequently, Burke's claim for benefits was dismissed with prejudice, and Towers was ordered to pay court costs.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAccidental ShootingArising out of employmentCausal connectionEmployment hazardsDismissed with prejudiceTennessee lawVehicle repair shopCoworker injury
References
6
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
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