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 15, 2010

In Re Keller

This case involves an appeal by Judge Sharon Keller against a Public Warning issued by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission's warning stemmed from her decision not to keep the clerk's office open past business hours, which impeded a death penalty appeal. While a Special Master recommended no formal action, the Commission issued the warning after formal proceedings. This Special Court of Review concluded that, under Texas law, a public warning cannot be issued following formal proceedings; sanctions are only permissible after informal investigations. Consequently, the court vacated the Commission's order and dismissed the charges against Judge Keller, without commenting on the accusations' merits.

Judicial misconductPublic warningFormal proceedingsInformal proceedingsTexas ConstitutionGovernment CodeDue processJudicial reviewSanctionsCensure
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tishman Construction Corp. v. Arc Electrical Construction Co.

This case concerns a declaratory judgment action brought by Morgan Trust Company and Tishman Construction Corporation (plaintiffs) against Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Company (defendant). Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Northbrook was obligated to defend and indemnify them in an underlying action involving an injured worker, Joseph Hickey, who fell on a construction site. The initial motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs was denied by the IAS Court. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court determined that prior rulings based on res judicata established Northbrook's obligation, and that a late notice of claim argument by Northbrook lacked merit. Consequently, Northbrook was declared obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs.

Summary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentInsurance obligationIndemnificationAdditional insuredRes judicataLate notice of claimAppellate reviewConstruction accidentContract law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2013

Conn v. Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (In re Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP)

This case involves Vittoria Conn, a former employee of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, who initiated a putative class action adversary proceeding. She alleged violations of the federal, New York, and California WARN Acts due to mass layoffs without proper advance notice. Dewey & LeBoeuf, the Debtor, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that these claims should be processed through the claims allowance system and that the 'liquidating fiduciary principle' exempted them from WARN Act obligations. The Court denied the Debtor's motion to dismiss, concluding that WARN Act claims, which seek equitable relief, are appropriately brought in an adversary proceeding. The Court postponed decisions on class certification and the administrative or priority status of the claims, noting these issues are to be resolved in the main bankruptcy case.

WARN ActNY WARN ActCAL WARN ActClass ActionAdversary ProceedingBankruptcyMotion to DismissEquitable ReliefLiquidating Fiduciary PrincipleEmployee Layoffs
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2008

AIU Insurance v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The case involves a dispute between two insurers regarding their respective coverage obligations for a mutual insured in an underlying action following a fatal construction site accident. Plaintiff, who insured both the site owner and the subcontractor, sought reimbursement from defendant, who also insured the employer under a workers’ compensation policy, for half of a settlement paid in the underlying action. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to plaintiff, obligating defendant to reimburse plaintiff. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, vacating the judgment and granting summary judgment to defendant. The appellate court ruled that the antisubrogation rule would have compelled the dismissal of any third-party action, thereby precluding plaintiff from obtaining reimbursement from a coinsurer.

Insurance CoverageSubrogationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFatal AccidentCoinsuranceAppellate ReversalUnderlying ActionThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Preserver Insurance v. Ryba

This is a declaratory judgment action where an unnamed plaintiff insurance company appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting Northern Assurance Company of America's cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend and indemnify East Coast Stucco & Construction, Inc., in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact against Northern's prima facie showing that Insurance Law § 3420 (d) applied, rendering the plaintiff’s disclaimer untimely. Additionally, Northern established that the injured party was subject to Workers’ Compensation Law, precluding the application of the policy’s liability limit. The court remitted the matter for entry of a judgment declaring the plaintiff is obligated to defend and indemnify East Coast.

Insurance LawDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewTimely DisclaimerInsurance Coverage
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2004

In Re CEI Roofing, Inc.

This case concerns an emergency motion filed by CEI Roofing, Inc. and its affiliated debtors, undergoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy, to authorize the payment of pre-petition employee wages and benefits. The motion, seeking relief under Sections 105(a) and 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, was granted by Judge Harlin D. Hale. The court permitted the debtors to pay employee payroll obligations and maintain various benefit programs, including health plans, retirement benefits, and workers' compensation. The decision emphasized the necessity of these payments for preserving the debtors' going-concern value and was supported by the consent of the secured creditor, aligning with the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme for such claims.

Chapter 11Emergency MotionEmployee ObligationsWage ClaimsBenefit ProgramsPriority ClaimsCash CollateralGoing Concern ValueBankruptcy Code SectionsCritical Vendors Doctrine
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1979

Hughes, Harrison & Brown Roofing, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance

Plaintiffs, a corporation and individuals, initiated an action seeking a declaration that their insurance company, the defendant, was obligated to defend and indemnify them in a negligence lawsuit filed by an employee, Patrick Paul Black. The underlying negligence action alleged that the corporation failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. The defendant insurer denied its obligation, citing policy exclusions related to workers' compensation liabilities and disputing coverage for the individual plaintiffs. Initially, the Supreme Court, Orange County, granted the plaintiffs' request for accelerated judgment, compelling the insurer to provide defense. However, this judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, with the appellate court noting the absence of the actual insurance policy and the impropriety of adjudicating coverage without it, especially concerning the workers' compensation exclusion.

Insurance coverage disputeDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyWorkers' compensation exclusionAccelerated judgmentNegligence actionEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewPolicy interpretationSummary judgment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Kolodny

Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine if it was obligated to indemnify Chaim S. Kolodny or provide coverage for claims stemming from a fatal 1990 automobile accident. GEICO argued a policy exclusion applied because the vehicle was for Kolodny's regular use. The Supreme Court initially granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that GEICO's disclaimer, issued over a year after receiving notice of the accident, was untimely and lacked an adequate explanation for the delay. Consequently, GEICO was found to be obligated to provide coverage. The appeal from the intermediate order was dismissed.

Insurance CoverageAutomobile AccidentDeclaratory JudgmentTimely DisclaimerPolicy ExclusionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEstate AdministrationIndemnificationRegular Use Clause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2004

HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. v. Royal Surplus Lines Insurance

This case involves HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. (HRH) and National Union Fire Insurance Company (National) seeking to establish Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company's (Royal) obligation to defend HRH in an underlying action and reimburse legal fees. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially ruled that Royal was obligated to defend HRH and reimburse legal fees from December 30, 1999. Upon appeal, this order was modified to change the reimbursement start date to November 22, 2000, and otherwise affirmed. The court rejected Royal's argument that a specific endorsement overrode a general blanket additional insured endorsement, which Royal claimed would make them coprimary insurers with National. The duty to defend was clarified to be triggered upon the commencement of the underlying action against HRH.

Insurance disputeGeneral contractor liabilityAdditional insured endorsementDuty to defendInsurance reimbursementSummary judgmentPolicy interpretationConstruction site accidentPrimary insuranceOther insurance clause
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,795 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