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
Jan 23, 1995

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Fratto Curbing Co.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund seeking a default judgment against Fratto Curbing Co., Inc. for delinquent pension fund contributions. Fratto failed to respond to the complaint after being served, leading to an entry of default by the Clerk of the Court. The court granted the Teamsters' motion for default judgment, finding Fratto liable for delinquent contributions, audit fees, interest, and attorney's fees. The decision also clarified the calculation of liquidated damages under ERISA, stating that the fund is entitled to the greater of double interest or the plan's liquidated damages, but not both, thus reducing the total award. The final judgment was entered against Fratto in the amount of $5,687.23, along with post-judgment interest.

ERISAPension ContributionsDefault JudgmentDelinquent PaymentsCollective BargainingEmployee BenefitsLiquidated Damages CalculationAttorney's FeesFederal CourtContractual Obligations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.H. Cobb Co. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

F.H. Cobb Co., a subsidiary of Super Food Services Inc., filed an action seeking a declaration of non-liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) concerning withdrawal liability to the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund. The MPPAA retroactively imposed liability for employers withdrawing on or after April 29, 1980. F.H. Cobb had ceased its primary wholesale distribution business by March 8, 1980, and retained a minimal workforce for only phase-out activities until May 16, 1980, with final pension contributions in May 1980. The court analyzed whether this constituted a 'complete withdrawal' prior to the MPPAA's effective date, concluding that the phase-out work did not negate the earlier cessation of covered operations. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring F.H. Cobb's non-liability under the MPPAA's withdrawal provisions.

MPPAAwithdrawal liabilitymultiemployer pension plancessation of operationssummary judgmentretroactive legislationpension contributionsphase-out workemployer obligationsplan funding
References
9
Case No. 91-CV-324; 92-CV-569
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Boening Bros.

The New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund sought to audit the payroll records of contributing employers Boening Brothers, Inc. and Charles Snyder Beverages, Inc. The employers refused, arguing they were not explicitly bound by audit provisions. The Court ruled that by contributing to the multiemployer plan under collective bargaining agreements, the employers implicitly assented to the Fund's governing documents, which include the right to audit. Citing precedents, the Court found the audit necessary to ensure proper contributions and plan integrity, upholding the Fund's right to audit all payroll records, including non-bargaining unit employees. However, the Court denied the Fund's request for attorney's fees, noting the lack of bad faith by the defendants and the unsettled nature of the legal issue at the time.

ERISAPension PlanMultiemployer PlanPayroll AuditCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsPlan AdministrationFiduciary Duty
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund

This case addresses an action brought by employees and retired employees of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Teamsters Fund) seeking to enjoin the merger of the Teamsters Fund with the Brewery Workers Pension Fund. Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), including insufficient employee notification of the proposed merger, potential reduction in benefits, and failure to meet minimum funding standards. Chief Judge Curtin of the federal court determined that ERISA provisions cited by plaintiffs were either inapplicable to multiemployer plans at the time or had established mechanisms to address the concerns. The court also found the claim regarding the merger not being in the best interests of Teamsters Fund participants to be barred by res judicata due to prior state court decisions. Consequently, the court denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Pension FundsFund MergerPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentRes JudicataMulti-employer PlansFiduciary DutyMinimum Funding StandardsTax Qualification
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 1989

Kinek v. Gulf & Western, Inc.

The Kinek plaintiffs and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) sued Gulf & Western, Inc. (G&W) and its pension plan for alleged violations of a collectively-bargained pension agreement and ERISA, stemming from a 'spin-off' where G&W transferred assets and liabilities to Horsehead Industries' pension plan. Plaintiffs argued G&W failed to fully fund vested pension benefits upon this transfer, as contractually required by the G&W Plan's sections 3.1 and 10.2. The court confirmed plaintiffs' standing and applied a de novo standard of review. It ruled that the G&W Plan's provisions, when read together, obligated G&W to provide full funding for vested benefits during an asset transfer. Consequently, the court denied G&W's motion for summary judgment and granted the Kinek plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment, holding G&W liable.

ERISALMRAPension PlanEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentContract DisputePension FundingAsset TransferSpin-offVested Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 182 v. New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund

Plaintiff Teamsters Local Union No. 182 (Local 182) filed an action against the New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund and the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the Funds) under 29 U.S.C. § 185. Local 182 sought a declaration affirming the existence of valid collective bargaining agreements between April 1992 and March 1994, which mandated grievance and arbitration procedures, and an order compelling the Funds to arbitrate layoff-related grievances. The Union contended there was a long-standing oral agreement to adhere to applicable provisions of the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA). The Funds moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the existence of any agreement with requisite definiteness. The court denied the summary judgment motion, affirming subject matter jurisdiction and finding that Local 182 presented genuine issues of material fact concerning the existence of a collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor DisputeUnion RightsGrievance ProcedureArbitrationSeniority RightsLayoffsNational Master Freight AgreementPension Benefits
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund v. DOREN AVE. ASSOCIATES, INC.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund pursuing withdrawal liability payments from Doren Avenue Associates, Inc., Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC. The Fund alleged these defendants were under common control with or alter egos of Howard’s Express, Inc., a company previously obligated to the Fund. The court ruled that determining the defendants' "employer status" under the MPPAA was a matter for judicial decision, not arbitration. It denied the Fund's motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence on the common control and alter ego claims against Express and S&P. Conversely, the court granted the summary judgment motion for Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC, dismissing the complaint against them and terminating related arbitration proceedings, while granting a default judgment against Doren Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pension Withdrawal LiabilityMPPAAERISACommon Control DoctrineAlter Ego LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court JurisdictionArbitration TerminationCorporate Ownership StructureEmployee Benefit Plans
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laflamme v. Carpenters Local 370 Pension Plan

Plaintiff Michael LaFlamme initiated a class action against the Carpenters Local #370 Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) concerning the plan's 'freezing rule' for benefit accrual after a 'break in service.' LaFlamme sought a judicial declaration that this rule contravenes ERISA's minimum accrual standards, along with a reformation of the pension plan and recalculation of benefits for all affected class members. The court, presided over by District Judge Hurd, evaluated the motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b), finding that the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were met. Consequently, the motion for class certification was granted, establishing a class comprised of all plan participants, active or retired, who experienced a service break resulting in frozen benefit accrual rates. The decision also outlined procedures for providing notice to the newly certified class members, while deferring detailed adjudication of defenses like statute of limitations and exhaustion of remedies to later dispositive motions.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass ActionBenefit AccrualFreezing RuleBreaks in ServiceClass CertificationRule 23(a)Rule 23(b)Federal Civil Procedure
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seitz ex rel. Pension Plan of the Brewery Workers Pension Fund v. Board of Trustees

Plaintiffs David A Seitz, Thomas Rocco, and Dorothy Casey filed a suit against The Board of Trustees of the Pension Plan of The New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund. They seek pension benefits, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief, claiming entitlement under a 1973 Merger Agreement between the Brewery Workers Pension Fund and the Teamsters Plan. The core of their claim revolves around the effective date of the Merger Agreement, arguing for an earlier date to qualify for better benefits. The Defendant moved to dismiss the suit due to improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The Court, after reviewing ERISA venue provisions and minimum contacts tests, found that the Southern District was not the proper venue and granted the Defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of New York.

Pension BenefitsERISAVenue TransferMinimum ContactsForum SelectionBrewery Workers Pension FundTeamsters Conference Pension and Retirement FundDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefMerger Agreement
References
6
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,198 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