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

Travelers Insurance v. Nory Construction Co.

Plaintiff Travelers Insurance Company initiated a subrogation action against Nory Construction Co., Inc. to recover over $3.5 million paid to satisfy a judgment against its insured, the State of New York, following a construction accident. Travelers sought common-law indemnification, arguing Nory was entirely at fault, including amounts paid beyond its policy limits. Nory countered that Travelers could not recover voluntary payments, and the claim was barred by the antisubrogation rule and untimely disclaimer. The court denied Travelers' motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence regarding Nory's sole fault. Ultimately, the court granted Nory's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Travelers' overpayment, made without legal compulsion or Nory's request, constituted a voluntary payment and was therefore not recoverable under equitable subrogation principles.

SubrogationIndemnificationInsurance Policy LimitsAntisubrogation RuleVoluntary Payment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionConstruction LawWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCommercial General LiabilityUmbrella Policy
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond D Construction Corp. v. New York State Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Public Works

This decision addresses Diamond D Construction Corp.'s motion for reconsideration, challenging the court's prior denial of a preliminary injunction. The court re-evaluates its stance on Eleventh Amendment immunity, concluding that Diamond D's claim for prospective injunctive relief against the Department of Labor's enforcement actions is not barred, distinguishing previous cases like Tekkno and Yorktown. While affirming the applicability of the Younger abstention doctrine, the court acknowledges that a 'narrow' exception for bad faith or harassment by the DOL might apply. To resolve factual disputes regarding whether the DOL acted in bad faith or violated Diamond D's substantive due process rights, the court grants the motion for reconsideration in part and orders evidentiary hearings.

Federal CourtEleventh AmendmentYounger AbstentionDue ProcessProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessMotion for ReconsiderationPreliminary InjunctionState SovereigntyEvidentiary Hearing
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zellermaier v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Plaintiff Zellermaier, CEO of General Credit Corporation, initiated an action against Travelers, seeking $10,000,000 in damages for allegedly false statements made in a report to the New York State Insurance Department’s Frauds Bureau. This report concerned a suspected fraudulent claim for 13 stolen tractor trailers insured by Travelers, where General Credit had a security interest. Travelers moved for summary judgment, asserting protection under Insurance Law § 406, which provides civil liability immunity for reports of suspected insurance fraud, and arguing the action was barred by CPLR 215’s one-year statute of limitations. The court found no evidence of fraud or bad faith on Travelers' part. Consequently, the court granted Travelers’ cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied Zellermaier's motion to amend his complaint, affirming the statutory immunity and application of the statute of limitations. The court also noted that the case was barred by res judicata due to privity with a prior action.

Insurance FraudStatutory ImmunityInsurance Law § 406CPLR 215Summary JudgmentNegligent MisrepresentationFraudulent Insurance TransactionsWorkers' Compensation FraudRes JudicataStatute of Limitations
References
3
Case No. Civ. 79-714
Regular Panel Decision

Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Diamond Shamrock Corp.

This case involves several pending motions before Chief Judge Curtin concerning patent infringement disputes between E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company and Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation (plaintiffs) against Diamond Shamrock Corporation (defendant). The court addressed Du Pont's motion to vacate a prior order joining it as an involuntary plaintiff, which was denied. Diamond's motion to consolidate two related cases, Civ. 79-714 and Civ. 79-794, was granted in the interest of judicial economy. Additionally, Diamond's motion to file an amended counterclaim was partially granted, allowing the assertion of new claims for infringement of the Dotson '194 patent and unfair competition, including a new jury trial right for these specific issues. The court clarified that the jury trial right for previously asserted claims was waived.

Patent InfringementMotion PracticeCase ConsolidationAmended CounterclaimJury Trial WaiverPendent JurisdictionRule 19(a) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 42 Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 13 Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 38(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cephalon, Inc. v. Travelers Companies, Inc.

Plaintiff Cephalon, Inc. initiated a declaratory judgment action against The Travelers Companies, Inc. and its four subsidiaries in the Southern District of New York. Cephalon sought a declaration that its off-label promotion of the drug Actiq did not violate the FDCA and caused no injury to Travelers. This suit was filed after Travelers, a workers' compensation insurer, sent pre-suit settlement demands to Cephalon, accusing it of causing damages through off-label drug promotion. Travelers moved to dismiss or transfer the case. The court granted Travelers' motion to dismiss, ruling that Cephalon's declaratory action was improperly anticipatory, having been filed in direct response to Travelers' specific threat of litigation and impending deadlines.

Declaratory JudgmentImproperly AnticipatoryFirst-Filed RuleMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Off-Label Drug PromotionFood, Drug and Cosmetics ActInsurance DisputeWorkers' CompensationForum Selection
References
19
Case No. ADJ6999645
Regular
Mar 04, 2011

SANDY DROUIN vs. HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, TRAVELERS DIAMOND BAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying order denying a deposition was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant had argued the WCJ erred in denying their request to compel a deposition due to insufficient provision for travel expenses. The Board noted unprofessional conduct by both attorneys.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Petition to Compel AttendanceDeposition CostsTransportation ExpensesAirline E-TicketTravel ExpensesFinal OrderSubstantive RightsIrreparable Harm
References
5
Case No. ADJ8475421
Regular
Mar 30, 2017

Jessica Duncan vs. Right At Home, Travelers Diamond Bar

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a lien claimant's claim for medical services. The Board found that the lien, filed on June 4, 2016, was barred by the 18-month statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a). This was because the last date of service was August 8, 2013, which fell after the July 1, 2013, implementation date of the 18-month rule. The Board also held that it lacked the authority to rule on constitutional vagueness claims.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)Lien claimStatute of limitationsReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJTimelinessDate of servicesContinuous treatmentUnconstitutionally vague
References
6
Case No. ADJ769558
Regular
Apr 02, 2013

JOSE VILLA-TORRES vs. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE, TRAVELERS DIAMOND BAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that the lien claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The WCAB also dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The Board declined to impose sanctions on either party, though it admonished defendant's counsel for excessive exhibits. The ALJ's report, which detailed the untimeliness of the lien claim and found no basis for tolling the statute of limitations, was adopted and incorporated by the WCAB.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 4903.5Compromise and ReleaseToll Statute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMedical Provider
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pecker Iron Works of New York, Inc. v. Traveler's Insurance

This case involves a dispute between Pecker Iron Works and Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut concerning the primary versus excess coverage obligations of two liability insurance carriers. Pecker, designated as an 'additional insured' under Upfront Enterprises' policy with Travelers, sought primary coverage after an Upfront worker was injured on a construction site. Travelers contended its policy provided only excess coverage for additional insureds unless explicitly designated as primary in a written contract. The Supreme Court initially agreed with Travelers, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that coverage for additional insureds is presumed primary unless unambiguously stated otherwise. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Pecker was entitled to primary coverage.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSubcontractor AgreementDeclaratory JudgmentContract InterpretationLiability InsuranceConstruction ProjectAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. v. Travelers Group, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, compelling The Travelers Group to indemnify plaintiffs for a $2.3 million judgment in a personal injury action, and denied Travelers' cross-motion. The Travelers Group had issued a workers' compensation policy to FTJ Environmental, Inc., whose employees were injured while working in New York City. The policy's coverage was explicitly conditioned on the work in New York being necessary or incidental to FTJ's work in New Jersey, which was listed as the coverage state. The appellate court found no evidence in the record to support this condition and noted that the policy limit was $100,000 per accident, not $2.3 million. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order, denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation PolicyEmployers Liability PolicyPolicy CoverageLabor Law § 240Burden of ProofInsurance Policy LimitsAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,237 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