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. ADJ7437756
Regular
Mar 23, 2012

Antonio Parvool vs. TONY'S FOOD SERVICE, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY OF CONNECTICUT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that applicant Antonio Parvool sustained an industrial injury while employed as a chef's assistant and traveling for his employer. The Board overturned the original finding that the applicant's dive into a pool at an employer-provided hotel was not work-related, applying the "commercial traveler rule." This rule presumes an employee is acting within the scope of employment during business travel, including activities reasonably necessary for comfort. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) regarding recreational activities does not apply to commercial travelers.

Commercial traveler ruleIndustrial injuryCourse of employmentReconsiderationFindings and OrdersLabor Code section 3600(a)(9)Reasonable expectancyImpliedly requiredWCJOff-duty recreational activity
References
11
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. 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

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance

This case involves a dispute between two insurance companies, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (excess insurer) and Commercial Union Insurance Company (primary insurer), concerning liability for an injury claim. Michael Jutt, an employee of Minuteman Press International, Inc., was injured while on a Minuteman-owned boat. Commercial Union, the primary insurer, denied coverage and refused to defend Minuteman, leading Hartford, the excess insurer, to provide defense and settle Jutt's claim for $135,000. Hartford subsequently sued Commercial Union for breach of fiduciary duty. The District Court affirmed Hartford's standing to sue, recognizing a direct fiduciary duty owed by a primary insurer to an excess insurer, and found that the "paid employees" exclusion in Commercial Union's policy was ambiguous. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Hartford, ordering Commercial Union to pay $135,000 plus interest.

Insurance LawExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceFiduciary DutyEquitable SubrogationPolicy ExclusionAmbiguous Contract TermDeclaratory Judgment ActionStanding to SueMarine Insurance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romano v. Whitehall Properties

An employee of Sorbara Construction Company was injured at a construction site owned by Whitehall Properties, LLC. The employee received workers' compensation benefits from Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company of America, Sorbara's carrier. The employee also filed a negligence action against Whitehall and the general contractor, Kreisler Borg Florman General Construction Co., Inc. This negligence action was settled, with Travelers contributing under a general liability policy. Whitehall and Kreisler appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion to extinguish Travelers' workers' compensation lien against the settlement. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the anti-subrogation rule did not apply because Travelers' workers' compensation obligation arose from a separate policy issued to Sorbara, not the general liability policy covering Whitehall and Kreisler, thus allowing Travelers to assert its lien.

Workers' Compensation LienAnti-Subrogation RuleGeneral Liability PolicyPersonal Injury DamagesConstruction AccidentEmployer NegligenceInsurance CarrierSettlement AgreementAppellate DecisionThird-Party Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterec-Tolino v. Commercial Electrical Contractors, Inc.

The claimant, an apprentice employed by Commercial Electrical Contractors, Inc., was terminated after allegedly threatening a project superintendent. He subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits, citing a neck and back injury sustained prior to his termination. The claim proceeded under an Alternate Dispute Resolution program, where an arbitrator ultimately disallowed it, concluding it was an afterthought following the claimant's termination. The claimant appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the arbitrator's ruling, emphasizing that arbitration awards should only be vacated in limited circumstances such as fraud, corruption, misconduct, or if the award is irrational or exceeds the arbitrator's power. The court found the arbitrator's determination rational and supported by testimony, dismissing the claimant's allegations of fraudulent testimony and arbitrator misconduct as credibility issues appropriately resolved by the arbitrator.

Arbitration AwardCredibility DisputeCompensable InjuryAppellate ReviewFraud AllegationMisconduct AllegationAlternate Dispute ResolutionNeck InjuryBack InjuryEmployer Termination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S. Strauss, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 342

S. Strauss, Inc. filed a motion to stay arbitration initiated by the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union, Local 342. Strauss argued the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was a 'sham' and its arbitration clause unenforceable. The District Court denied the motion, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel based on a previous Southern District of New York ruling that affirmed the CBA's validity. The court also rejected Strauss's 'sham' argument on its merits and dismissed the 'primary jurisdiction' doctrine argument. Consequently, Strauss's motion was denied and the case dismissed.

Labor LawArbitrationCollective BargainingContract DisputeCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionFederal CourtsUnion RepresentationMotion PracticeInjunctive Relief
References
37
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fulton Boiler Works, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance

Fulton Boiler Works, Inc., filed an action against several insurance companies regarding defense and indemnification for thousands of asbestos claims. The court addressed multiple pending motions for summary judgment, focusing on the proper allocation of indemnity costs among the liable parties, Fulton's obligation for uninsured years, the applicability of equitable estoppel against insurers, and Travelers' specific obligations concerning notice of claims and disclaimers. The court ruled that a pro rata allocation of indemnity costs is appropriate, with Fulton liable for periods it was uninsured. Equitable estoppel was deemed inapplicable to bar insurers from seeking contribution, and Travelers was found to have received proper notice for many claims and is barred from disclaiming coverage due to untimely disclaimers. This order, along with a previous one, sets the 'ground rules' for resolving past, pending, and future asbestos claims.

Asbestos LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeIndemnity AllocationSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelNotice ProvisionsDisclaimer of CoveragePro Rata AllocationInjury-in-factComprehensive General Liability Policy
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 7,705 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