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

Commercial Risk Reinsurance Co. v. Security Insurance

Petitioners Commercial Risk Reinsurance Company Limited and Commercial Risk Re-Insurance Company (collectively “Commercial Risk”) initiated an action to vacate an arbitration award obtained by respondent Security Insurance Company of Hartford (“Security”). Security subsequently cross-moved to confirm the Award. The District Court denied Commercial Risk’s motion to vacate and granted Security’s motion to confirm the Award, finding that Commercial Risk failed to establish sufficient grounds for misconduct by the arbitrators. Commercial Risk then sought reconsideration of this order, arguing improper exclusion of a witness and documents related to damages. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its original decision and emphasizing the broad discretion granted to arbitrators in procedural matters, particularly given the "Honorable Engagement" clause in the parties' agreement.

ArbitrationReinsurance ContractsVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardMotion for ReconsiderationFederal Arbitration ActInternational ArbitrationEvidentiary RulingsJudicial ReviewArbitrator Discretion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

474431 Associates v. AXA Global Risks US Insurance

This case involves an appeal by Allcity Insurance Company in a consolidated action seeking a declaratory judgment regarding co-insurance liability between Allcity and AXA Global Risks US Insurance Company. The dispute arose from an underlying action where an injured worker obtained a judgment against a property owner, which was satisfied by the owner's insurer, AIG. AIG then sought reimbursement from the worker's employer's carriers, Allcity (worker's compensation) and AXA (general liability). The Supreme Court initially favored AXA, but the appellate court reversed, holding that AXA's disclaimer of coverage was untimely under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). The matter was remitted to declare AXA a co-insurer with Allcity.

Insurance Law § 3420 (d)Disclaimer of CoverageTimely Notice RequirementCo-Insurance DisputeGeneral Liability InsuranceWorker's Compensation InsuranceSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Court DecisionDeclaratory ReliefPolicy Exclusion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, acting as a governmental agency and successor in interest to several insolvent workers' compensation self-insured trusts, commenced an action against a third-party administrator (Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.), its employees, related corporate entities, insurance brokers (including Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc.), former trustees of one of the trusts (RITNY), and an actuarial firm (Regnier Consulting Group, Inc.). The plaintiff alleged misconduct and malfeasance by the defendants led to trust insolvencies and sought to recover accumulated deficits. The case involves cross appeals challenging the Supreme Court’s partial dismissal of the complaint, specifically concerning the timeliness of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and common-law indemnification, applying the repudiation and discovery rules for statute of limitations. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by dismissing specific claims against Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc., broadening the temporal scope of breach of fiduciary duty claims against other defendants, and reinstating common-law indemnification claims against several RITNY trustees, affirming the order as modified and remitting the case.

Workers' CompensationBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractCommon-Law IndemnificationStatute of LimitationsRepudiation RuleDiscovery RuleTrust Insolvency
References
27
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. 01 Civ. 2254
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2004

Roane v. Greenwich Swim Committee

This tort action stems from injuries sustained by Stephen Roane during a one-mile swim event in Long Island Sound and a subsequent rescue attempt. Plaintiffs, Stephen and Margot Roane, sued the event organizer Greenwich Swim Committee (GSC), boat owner Walter McDermott, and boat manufacturer S2 Yachts, Inc. The court applied general maritime law. It granted S2's motions to preclude plaintiffs' expert witness and for summary judgment, finding the expert's methodology unreliable regarding design defects. However, the court denied GSC and McDermott's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike their affirmative defenses of waiver and assumption of risk, deeming the waiver unenforceable and assumption of risk inapplicable in admiralty law. The case will proceed to trial against GSC and McDermott.

Maritime LawAdmiralty JurisdictionSummary JudgmentExpert Witness TestimonyDaubert StandardRule 702NegligenceProduct LiabilityWaiver of LiabilityAssumption of Risk
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1998

Olejniczak v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Mr. Olejniczak, an employee of Praxair, Inc., filed a negligence suit after falling on packed snow and ice at the defendant's Yerkes plant in Tonawanda, New York, on January 19, 1994, seeking $1,000,000 for permanent injuries and emotional distress, while his wife sought $250,000 for loss of services. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of proximate cause, no duty under the "storm in progress" doctrine, and the plaintiff's assumption of risk. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman recommended denying the motion, finding genuine factual disputes regarding proximate cause and the applicability of the "storm in progress" rule. She also determined that assumption of risk, under New York's comparative negligence law (CPLR 1411), does not serve as a complete bar to recovery in this context. District Judge Arcara adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, thereby denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment and referring the case back for further proceedings.

Summary Judgment MotionNegligenceSlip and FallProximate CauseLandowner DutyStorm in Progress DoctrineAssumption of RiskComparative NegligenceFederal Civil ProcedureMagistrate Judge
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Stewart

Plaintiffs Kevin A. Ward, Sr. and Pamela Ward filed a wrongful death action after their son was killed in a sprint car race by defendant Anthony Wayne Stewart. Stewart removed the suit to federal court and asserted an indemnification counterclaim based on two liability releases. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing negligence claims were barred by the Releases or by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Plaintiffs opposed and cross-moved seeking dismissal of defendant's counterclaim for indemnification, arguing the Releases were inapplicable or unenforceable. A previous December 2017 Order invalidated the Releases and dismissed Stewart's counterclaim. Stewart then moved to certify certain portions of the December Order for interlocutory appeal or for partial final judgment, which the court denied. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting immediate appeal concerning the releases or the assumption-of-risk defense, and no just reason for delay for partial final judgment, concluding that the motion for certification and/or entry of partial final judgment is denied.

Wrongful Death ActionSprint Car RacingLiability ReleasesAssumption of RiskInterlocutory AppealPartial Final JudgmentFederal Civil ProcedureNew York General Obligations LawNegligence ClaimsIndemnification Counterclaim
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beroutsos v. Six Flags Theme Park, Inc.

Plaintiff Mr. Beroutsos suffered neck and back injuries after riding a roller coaster at defendant Six Flags Theme Park, Inc. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff assumed the inherent risks of the ride, which were purportedly made clear through posted warnings and a souvenir manual. The court examined the doctrine of assumption of risk, emphasizing that it involves both knowledge and appreciation of the injury-causing defect, and is typically a factual question for the jury. The court found that the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff assumed the risk of severe neck and back injuries, especially considering an expert's affidavit citing defective ride design. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied.

Roller Coaster InjuryAssumption of RiskSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryAmusement Park LiabilityNeck InjuryBack InjuryDefective DesignWarning SufficiencyQuestion of Fact
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clark v. Interlaken Owners, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment where an infant plaintiff was found 75% responsible for injuries sustained at a construction site. The five-year-old plaintiff was injured while playing on unsecured construction equipment belonging to Andem Construction, Inc., on property owned by Interlaken Owners, Inc. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the trial court erred in including instructions on the doctrine of "assumption of risk" in its charge to the jury, as a five-year-old child could not fully appreciate such risks. The court exercised its discretion to review this unpreserved error due to its fundamental nature and remanded the matter for a new trial. A dissenting opinion argued that the child's capacity to understand risk was a factual issue for the jury.

Personal InjuryChild InjuryAssumption of RiskJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewNew TrialNegligenceConstruction Site SafetyPremises LiabilityComparative Fault
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,462 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