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

Armoneit v. Elliott Crane Service, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal arising from a construction accident where Dennis Armoneit, an employee of Superior Framing, fell from a roof due to the alleged negligent operation of a crane rented from Elliott Crane Service, Inc. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgment, holding Elliott Crane vicariously liable for its crane operator and declaring an indemnity agreement between Elliott Crane and Fox Ridge Homes, Inc. (the general contractor) void. On appeal, the court reversed the finding of vicarious liability, determining that the crane operator might be a 'borrowed servant' of Fox Ridge or Superior Framing, thus requiring a factual determination. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision that the indemnity provision was void as contrary to public policy under Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-6-123, irrespective of liability insurance. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityBorrowed Servant DoctrineIndemnity AgreementPublic PolicySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentCrane OperationWorkers' Compensation
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Life & Accident Co. v. Wade

This case involves an appeal by the Home Life & Accident Company from an award of the Industrial Accident Board in favor of C. Wade. Wade, an an employee of A. C. MacParlane, sustained injuries while loading steel cranes onto a barge in the navigable Sabine River. The central legal question was whether Wade's maritime injury fell under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law or the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts. The trial court initially awarded compensation to Wade under state law. However, the appellate court, citing various U.S. Supreme Court precedents and an Attorney General's opinion, concluded that maritime injuries are subject to federal admiralty law, thus precluding state workers' compensation jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the appellate court ruled in favor of the Home Life & Accident Company.

Admiralty lawMaritime jurisdictionWorkers' compensationFederal preemptionState lawInjury at workNavigable watersLongshoremanSabine RiverEmployer liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2000

Jaeger v. Costanzi Crane, Inc.

Plaintiff Herman Jaeger, an employee of Jett Industries, Inc., was injured at a bridge construction site in December 1996 while attempting to straighten a rubber bearing plate as a 36-ton concrete beam was being lowered by two cranes. One of the cranes was provided by defendant Costanzi Crane, Inc. Plaintiff and his wife commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Defendant Costanzi Crane, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the court found that plaintiff's injuries were not caused by a malfunction or lack of a protective device, thus the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim failed. Furthermore, since defendant had no supervisory control over the activities that led to the injury, the claims under common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) also failed. The order was modified, granting summary judgment to Costanzi Crane, Inc. and dismissing the complaint against it.

Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentCrane OperationWorkplace SafetyNegligenceSupervisory ControlGravity-Related AccidentThird-Party LiabilityInjury ClaimBridge Construction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06419 [154 AD3d 139]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2017

Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed consolidated wrongful death actions stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which caused the deaths of Donald Christopher Leo and Ramadan Kurtaj. Plaintiffs, including Maria Leo and Xhevahire Sinanaj, sued James F. Lomma and his companies (J.F. Lomma, Inc. and New York Crane & Equipment Corp.) alleging negligence and reckless conduct related to a defective crane bearing. The court affirmed the jury's decision to pierce the corporate veil and to preclude a defense expert, finding Lomma personally liable due to his actions. However, the appellate court significantly reduced the jury's substantial awards for preimpact terror, conscious pain and suffering, and punitive damages, deeming them excessive. The judgment was modified, contingent on the plaintiffs stipulating to the reduced amounts.

Crane CollapseWrongful DeathCorporate Veil PiercingPunitive DamagesExpert Testimony PreclusionNegligenceConstruction AccidentConscious Pain and SufferingPreimpact TerrorDefective Weld
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.D. Abrams, Inc. v. McIver

Appellee, Lori Crane, sued J.D. Abrams, Inc., Granite Construction Company, and Daniel Quinlan for negligence following an automobile accident that left Crane incapacitated. A jury awarded Crane $13,500,000, finding Quinlan 75% negligent, Abrams 20%, and Granite 5%. Abrams appealed, challenging the non-submission of liability for settling defendants Yucatan and Colorado, and the sufficiency of evidence for its own negligence and proximate cause. The appellate court reversed in part, remanding the case to recalculate settlement credits to include amounts paid to all claimants, not just Crane. In all other respects, including findings on Abrams' negligence, the judgment was affirmed.

Automobile AccidentNegligenceComparative ResponsibilitySettlement CreditsDram Shop ActProximate CauseStandard of CareExpert TestimonyJury Verdict ImpeachmentAttorney Ad Litem Fees
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szarewicz v. Alboro Crane Rental Corp.

The interlocutory judgment from Supreme Court, Kings County, favoring the plaintiff against Alboro Crane Rental Corp. on liability, was unanimously reversed and vacated on appeal. The plaintiff, a structural steel worker employed by Harrod Steel Erectors, was injured when knocked off a steel beam, allegedly due to a negligent crane operator. A key issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the operator and Alboro, which owned and leased the crane to Harrod. The court found insufficient evidence to establish this relationship, noting the operator was not on Alboro's payroll and Alboro lacked control over his work. Consequently, the complaint against Alboro was dismissed, as liability could not be based on the rental agreement or control theory.

Crane accidentliabilityemployer-employee relationshipvicarious liabilitynegligenceleased equipmentappellate reviewjudgment reversalstructural steel workercrane operator control
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crane Rental Service v. Rutledge

Rutledge, a crane operator, was severely injured after being struck by a car while returning to his employer's premises to retrieve work-related items or lunch. The Chancellor ruled that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in permanent total disability. The employer, Crane Rental Service, and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the Chancellor's decree, finding sufficient evidence to support the inference that Rutledge was engaged in employment-related activity. The Court also applied the 'street risk exception,' deeming the injury compensable due to the employment occasioning the use of the street.

Workmen's CompensationAccidental InjuryScope of EmploymentStreet Risk ExceptionPrima Facie CasePermanent Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewAffirmation of DecreeInference from Circumstantial EvidenceEmployer Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keefe v. General Accident Insurance

Plaintiff Violet O'Keefe initiated an action against General Accident Insurance Company, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation based on age and sex, violating Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. O'Keefe claimed a discriminatory work environment and unlawful termination following her refusal of a proposed job transfer. The defendant argued O'Keefe's performance was poor and the transfer was a lateral move. The District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the federal discrimination and retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether General Accident's reasons for termination were pretextual. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law claims, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
19
Case No. 13-21-00361-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Accident Fund General Insurance Company v. Rodrigo Mendiola

Rodrigo Mendiola, a truck driver, suffered severe burns in an accident, leading to an above-the-knee amputation and significant injury to his left hand. His employer's workers' compensation insurer, Accident Fund General Insurance Company, disputed his claim for lifetime income benefits based on the total loss of use of his left hand. The trial court, applying the Travelers Insurance Co. v. Seabolt standard, found sufficient evidence that Mendiola's hand lacked substantial utility, entitling him to benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the application of the Seabolt standard and concluding the evidence factually supported the finding of total loss of use.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsTotal Loss of UseBurn InjuriesHand InjuryAmputationMedical EvidenceFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewStare Decisis
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 3,817 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