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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04576 [241 AD3d 563]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust v. American Home Assur. Co.

The New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust (NYBOCT), a self-insured entity, brought an action against its excess-of-loss insurer, American Home Assurance Co., alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory relief. This dispute arose after American Home denied coverage for a workers' compensation claim due to untimely notice. The Supreme Court granted American Home's motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, which NYBOCT appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract began when American Home disclaimed coverage on May 18, 2012, making NYBOCT's 2020 lawsuit untimely. The court rejected arguments related to the continuing-wrong doctrine and estoppel.

Limitation of ActionsBreach of ContractInsurance ContractDisclaimer of CoverageStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationExcess-of-Loss PolicySelf-Insured TrustUntimely NoticeAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04577
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

The plaintiff, New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust (NYBOCT), appealed an order that denied its motion to amend the complaint to add individual defendants and new causes of action. NYBOCT had originally sued its insurance broker and third-party administrators for alleged mishandling of a workers' compensation claim, which resulted in a denial of excess coverage. The Supreme Court had previously dismissed all but the breach of contract claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the motion to amend, citing the plaintiff's extended delay, lack of reasonable excuse, the prejudice to the defendants, and the determination that the proposed amendments were patently devoid of merit.

Insurance BrokerThird-Party AdministratorBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyPleading AmendmentFaithless Agent DoctrineWorkers' CompensationExcess CoverageAppellate ReviewDelay
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Andre v. City of New York

This case addresses two related actions concerning the proposed transfer of privately-owned bus company operations to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the transfer of claims management to AIG Claim Services, Inc. The plaintiffs, including nonunion employees and the bus companies, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the transfer without compliance with employee protective arrangements established by a 1975 operating agreement and subsequent certifications. The court denied motions by the City of New York and the MTA to dismiss the complaints, finding that the plaintiffs had standing and stated valid causes of action. Furthermore, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the proposed takeover until a determination by the Department of Labor and ordering the immediate restoration of claims management work to the bus companies, citing violations of employee protection agreements and procurement laws.

Employee Protective ArrangementsBus TransportationPublic ProcurementPreliminary InjunctionThird-Party BeneficiaryStanding to SueGovernment ContractsUrban Mass Transportation ActCollective Bargaining RightsClaims Management Transfer
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01980, 525411
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Matter of Portlette v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

Claimant Oneshiua Portlette, a bus operator, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits. Initially, her employer, Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, paid benefits for injuries Portlette reported sustained in a bus accident. However, the employer later suspended payments and raised fraud concerns after video evidence contradicted Portlette's account of the incident and her injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Board found that Portlette failed to prove a causally-related injury and made material misrepresentations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's consideration of the employer's evidence despite a lack of timely notice of controversy, and upholding the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions which supported that no causally-related injury occurred.

Workers' CompensationCausationFraudVideo EvidenceMedical OpinionNotice of ControversyPreclusionAppellate ReviewBus OperatorInjury Claim
References
7
Case No. 2-04-065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tarrant County Hospital District D/B/A John Peter Smith Hospital v. GE Automation Services, Inc., F/K/A GE Industrial Systems Solutions, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., F/K/A GE Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company

Appellant Tarrant County Hospital District appealed a summary judgment granted to Appellees GE Automation Services, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company. The suit stemmed from a 1996 transaction where Appellant alleged Appellees provided a defective bus duct system, leading to contract, warranty, products liability, and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 2.725) barred the contract and warranty claims, overriding governmental immunity. Furthermore, the court held that the economic loss rule precluded Appellant's tort claims, as the alleged damages constituted economic losses to the subject matter of the contract itself.

Summary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEconomic Loss RuleBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyProducts LiabilityNegligenceUniform Commercial CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
34
Case No. 14-19-00794-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2021

Hector Argueta, Jr. D/B/A Argueta Bus Service v. Mysterie Guiterrez, as Next Friend of M.C., a Minor Child

Max, a five-year-old, suffered a skull fracture and subdural hematoma after falling out of a school bus emergency exit. His mother, Mysterie Gutierrez, sued the bus operator, Hector Argueta, Jr. d/b/a Argueta Bus Service, for negligence. A jury awarded Gutierrez approximately $1.9 million in damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment in part, upholding findings of negligence and assessments for past and future physical pain and mental anguish, and future medical expenses until age 18. However, the court reversed and rendered the $1,000,000 award for future medical expenses after Max turns 18, finding a complete absence of supporting evidence.

School Bus AccidentChild InjuryNegligence ClaimTraumatic Brain InjurySkull FractureSubdural HematomaMedical ExpensesFuture DamagesEvidentiary RulingSufficiency of Evidence
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority & Gholson

Willie Gholson, a bus operator for Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, sought no-fault benefits after being attacked by a passenger. The Authority moved to stay arbitration, arguing that the incident was not related to the "use or operation" of the bus as defined by the Insurance Law. Gholson contended his injury, resulting from refusing to open the door at a non-bus stop, was part of his operation. The court, acknowledging the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that the injuries were due to employment activity, ultimately ruled that the no-fault law was intended for motor vehicle accidents involving physical contact between vehicles or persons, not assaults within a vehicle. Therefore, the court granted the Authority's motion to permanently stay arbitration.

No-fault benefitsBus operatorPassenger assaultArbitration stayInsurance LawMotor vehicle accidentUse or operationWorkers' CompensationScope of employmentJudicial interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fontus v. D & J School Bus

Carole Fontus was allegedly injured after being struck by a school bus owned by D & J School Bus and operated by DT Transportation, Inc., with Pasquale Amodei as the driver. Fontus and her husband filed a personal injury lawsuit. The defendants raised a fifth affirmative defense, claiming Fontus and Amodei were coemployees under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), thus barring the action. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike this defense. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike the fifth affirmative defense, citing unresolved issues of fact regarding the employment relationship between the parties.

Personal InjurySchool Bus AccidentCo-employmentWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeEmployment RelationshipMotor Vehicle Accident
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Defalco v. Mta Bus Co.

Plaintiffs Anthony Defalco and Eric Trantel sued Detective Brian Longaro, Supervisor Francis Bristow, and MTA Bus Company under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of due process, stemming from their arrest for bus battery theft and subsequent employment suspension. The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants. It found Bristow was not acting under color of state law, thus dismissing claims against him. For Longaro, the Court determined there was probable cause for arrest based on Bristow's eyewitness accounts, especially after another suspect confessed, negating the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. Finally, the Court struck the due process claim for insufficient pleading, and alternatively found that even if properly pled, it would fail as prompt post-suspension hearings were offered to plaintiffs, satisfying due process requirements given the governmental interest.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionDue ProcessSummary JudgmentSection 1983State ActionProbable CauseEmployment SuspensionMTA Bus CompanyPolice Misconduct
References
66
Case No. No. 20-0505
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2022

in Re Eagleridge Operating, Llc

In this premises-defect case, Eagleridge Operating, LLC sought mandamus relief after a trial court struck its designation of Aruba Petroleum, Inc. as a responsible third party. Eagleridge contended that Aruba, a former wellsite owner-operator, held continuing responsibility for injuries from a burst gas pipeline under an independent contractor theory, despite having conveyed its ownership interest. The Supreme Court of Texas denied the petition, affirming the lower courts' decision that Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Jenkins was controlling. The Court reiterated that a property owner acts solely as an owner when improving its own property, and responsibility for premises defects generally transfers with the conveyance of ownership. The Court concluded that Aruba's compensation as operator of record did not transform its role from owner to independent contractor, and thus its responsibility terminated upon conveyance.

Premises liabilityMandamusResponsible third partyProperty ownershipOil and gas lawIndependent contractorOwner-operatorTexas Supreme CourtAppellate procedureCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 2,249 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