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. 15 Civ. 3975 (NRB)
Regular Panel Decision

National Indemnity Co. v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A.

This case involves a dispute between National Indemnity Company (NICO) and IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A. (IRB) over reinsurance obligations. Following contentious arbitrations, a tribunal issued three awards favoring NICO. NICO petitioned the U.S. District Court to confirm these awards, while IRB cross-petitioned for vacatur, citing alleged 'evident partiality' of the neutral umpire, Daniel Schmidt, due to his concurrent service in an unrelated arbitration involving a NICO affiliate (Equitas) and challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction. The court found Schmidt's disclosures reasonable and his concurrent assignments insufficient to demonstrate partiality. It also affirmed the arbitration panel's jurisdiction over the disputed 2008 premium and associated fees. Consequently, the court granted NICO's petition to confirm the awards and denied IRB's cross-petition to vacate them.

ArbitrationReinsurance DisputeEvident PartialityUmpire DisclosureVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardFederal Arbitration ActNew York ConventionArbitration ClauseContract Interpretation
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.

This case involves the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation (Broadway) disputing the termination date of Broadway's non-union employee pension plan. PBGC initiated the lawsuit to become the statutory trustee and sought to establish March 26, 1981, as the termination date. Broadway argued for an earlier, retroactive date. The court, guided by ERISA and the interests of the plan participants, rejected both parties' proposed dates. The judge formulated a test for involuntary terminations and ultimately established December 5, 1980, as the official termination date, citing the date PBGC first formalized its intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActInvoluntary TerminationTermination Date DisputeBankruptcyPlan Participants' InterestsStatutory TrusteeFiduciary DutyPension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
References
2
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

Home Indemnity Co. v. Castel Construction Inc.

The Home Indemnity Company sought to recover unpaid workers’ compensation and general accident insurance premiums from Castel Construction, Inc., after the primary obligor, Gemelli Realty Corp., declared bankruptcy. Castel Construction, Inc., though a named insured, argued it had no direct relationship with the broker or plaintiff and claimed it derived no benefit from the policies. However, the court found Castel Construction, Inc. expressly liable under the insurance contract for the earned premiums. The decision highlighted the benefits Castel Construction, Inc. received as a named insured, including compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 50, and distinguished its situation from a prior case where the defendant was not explicitly named. Ultimately, judgment was rendered in favor of the Home Indemnity Company for the outstanding premiums.

Insurance PremiumsWorkers' Compensation CoverageGeneral Accident CoverageContractual LiabilityNamed InsuredSubcontractor LiabilityCorporate BankruptcyConstruction LawNew York Supreme CourtInsurance Broker
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n

TransAtlantic Lines LLC sought to overturn an adverse insurance coverage decision by the Board of Directors of American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, following a shipping accident. TransAtlantic argued for a de novo review, asserting the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process was fundamentally unfair due to the Board's inherent financial bias and violated public policy. The district court, however, applied the contractually agreed-upon "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. The court rejected TransAtlantic's claims of bias and public policy violations, finding that TransAtlantic had voluntarily consented to the ADR framework. Consequently, the court upheld the Board's decision to deny coverage for attorney's fees, U.S. Government cargo losses, and perishable cargo expenses, concluding that these denials were not arbitrary or capricious.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardContract LawMarine InsuranceJudicial Review of ArbitrationWaiver of RightsPublic Policy ExceptionAttorney Ethics
References
24
Case No. 80-3008, 81-1497
Regular Panel Decision

Hartley v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co.

Plaintiff James Hartley sustained personal injuries while employed by Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. during bridge construction in Troy, New York. He filed two consolidated actions: one against Kiewit under the Jones Act for bodily injury and loss of earnings, and another against Home Indemnity Company, Kiewit's workers' compensation insurer, alleging denial of LHWCA benefits after receiving New York State benefits. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Hartley's injury was covered by neither the Jones Act nor LHWCA. The court granted summary judgment for Home Indemnity, dismissing the LHWCA claim based on precedents that Hartley's construction activities were not considered "maritime employment" under the Act. However, the court denied Kiewit's motion to dismiss the Jones Act claim, finding a sufficient evidentiary basis for Hartley to potentially qualify as a "seaman," thus allowing that claim to proceed to trial.

Jones ActLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA)Maritime EmploymentSeaman StatusSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryBridge ConstructionNavigable WatersVesselDockworker
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1984

Barnhardt v. Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

The plaintiff, injured in May 1978 during maintenance work, was denied workers' compensation due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Subsequently, he sought reimbursement for medical expenses from the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds (Benefit Funds) through a union insurance policy. Continental Assurance Company (Continental), Benefit Funds' insurer, rejected the claim, citing an employment-related injury exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff then initiated an action against Benefit Funds, which in turn filed a third-party action against Continental seeking indemnification. Continental's motion for summary judgment, asserting the exclusion, was denied by the County Court. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that the exclusionary language was ambiguous and applied only in cases where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, a fact still to be determined.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionContractual AmbiguityGroup Health InsuranceMedical Expense ReimbursementThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
10
Case No. ADJ3430003 (AHM 0094014)
Regular
Sep 25, 2009

GORDON KENT vs. CONTROL COMPONENTS, INC.; ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over contribution between two insurance carriers, Arrowood Indemnity Company and Old Republic Insurance Company, for a cumulative injury claim. Initially, the arbitrator correctly found Arrowood's petition for contribution untimely for the original award due to failure to file within the statutory one-year period. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, recognizing that Arrowood timely filed its contribution petition within one year of a supplemental award approving a compromise and release agreement for new and further benefits. The Board amended the decision, allowing Arrowood to seek contribution from Old Republic solely for the $25,000 compromise and release settlement and remanding the matter for apportionment of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardContributionReconsiderationLabor CodeCumulative InjuryCompromise and ReleaseSupplemental AwardNew and Further DisabilityArbitrationTimeliness
References
2
Case No. ADJ8706889
Regular
Feb 16, 2016

Rachel Olson vs. Watsonville Community Hospital, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming an award for industrial injury to the applicant's low back and left hip. However, they reversed the administrative law judge's finding regarding a 10% increase in indemnity benefits under Labor Code section 4650(d). This penalty was deemed inapplicable because a good faith dispute existed regarding liability for additional benefits, and the prior decision was not yet final due to the ongoing appeals process. The Board emphasized that section 4650(d) penalties only apply when liability is not disputed or after all appellate rights have been exhausted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and Ordersindustrial injuryregistered nurselow back injuryleft hip injurypermanent disabilityfurther medical treatmentlumbar surgery
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

The Trustees of the Local 852 General Warehouseman’s Union Pension Fund sued the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) seeking reimbursement for pension benefits paid to retirees of two closed warehouses. The Fund argued for recovery based on equitable estoppel, asserting detrimental reliance on an initial PBGC determination that it would guarantee these benefits. The PBGC moved for summary judgment, contending that estoppel against a federal agency requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or manifest injustice. The Court found no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the PBGC and concluded that its change in determination, made to conform with Congressional intent, did not constitute manifest injustice. Consequently, the Court granted the PBGC's motion for summary judgment, ruling that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.

Equitable EstoppelFederal Agency EstoppelSummary JudgmentERISAPension BenefitsMulti-employer PlanPension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC)Affirmative MisconductManifest InjusticeDetrimental Reliance
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 9,911 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