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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Insurance v. State

Thomas Murray, an executive officer and co-owner of T & T Murray Company, Inc., sustained severe injuries while working, having previously elected to be excluded from Workers’ Compensation coverage under Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (6). Following a successful lawsuit against the general contractor, Concept Construction Corp., and subsequent indemnification from T & T, Concept's liability carrier, Continental Insurance Company, sought coverage from T & T's insurer, State Insurance Fund. The State Fund denied the claim, asserting the exclusion applied to both Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability coverage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling that the two types of coverage are inextricably linked, and the election to exclude executive officers from Workers’ Compensation coverage also eliminates Employers’ Liability coverage for injuries to those officers.

Workers' Compensation Law § 54(6)Employers' Liability CoverageExecutive Officer ExclusionCorporate OfficersStock OwnershipInsurance Policy InterpretationThird-Party IndemnificationSubrogation ClaimStatutory InterpretationNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. ADJ6697300
Regular
Aug 31, 2015

Lorenzo Yanez vs. Universal Label Printers, Sparta Insurance Company, Employers Compensation Insurance Company

This case involves an insurance dispute over contribution liability for a workers' compensation claim. The applicant, Lorenzo Yanez, sustained an injury while employed by Universal Label Printers, with coverage from Sparta Insurance Company and Employers Compensation Insurance Company. A Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement was approved, which included an addendum purportedly allocating liability between Sparta (17%) and Employers (87%). Sparta sought to enforce this addendum for reimbursement, but the trial judge denied their petition, finding a lack of jurisdiction due to no separate petition for contribution being filed within the statutory one-year period. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding continuing jurisdiction to enforce the C&R and its addendum under Labor Code section 5803, and returned the matter to the trial judge to determine the enforceability and terms of the addendum.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ContributionLabor Code Section 5500.5Continuing JurisdictionLabor Code Section 5803Apportionment of Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chiasera v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance

Plaintiffs August and Helen Chiasera sought to dismiss an affirmative defense raised by defendant Ignatius S. Bertola, M.D., and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin. August Chiasera alleged injury during a medical examination performed by Dr. Bertola, who was employed by the workers' compensation carrier, Employers Mutual, to evaluate a prior back injury. The defendants contended the claim was for medical malpractice, thus time-barred. The court ruled that no physician-patient relationship existed between Chiasera and Bertola, as the examination served the insurance company's interests, not for treatment. Consequently, the claim was for ordinary negligence, subject to a three-year Statute of Limitations. The plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the affirmative defense was granted.

NegligenceMedical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsPhysician-Patient RelationshipWorkers' CompensationInsurance ExaminationDuty of CareCPLR 214Affirmative DefenseMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2001

A.I. Transport v. New York State Insurance Fund

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied a liability insurer’s application to stay an arbitration initiated by a workers’ compensation insurer. The workers’ compensation insurer sought to recover benefits paid to a bus passenger injured in an accident, where the bus was insured by the liability insurer. The court interpreted Insurance Law § 5105 (a) to allow a workers’ compensation provider, paying benefits in lieu of first party benefits, to recover amounts paid from the insurer of a liable party, even if one of the vehicles involved is a bus. It was determined that an exception for losses arising from the use of a motor vehicle (Insurance Law § 5103 [a] [1]) did not apply, as the respondent was a workers’ compensation insurer and not an automobile insurer. Consequently, the arbitration was allowed to proceed, and the petition to stay it was dismissed and unanimously affirmed.

Arbitration DisputeInsurance Law InterpretationNo-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation SubrogationBus AccidentLiability CoverageStatutory ConstructionAppellate ReviewInsurer Recovery
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Finchum v. Colaiacomo

The Workers’ Compensation Board issued an amended decision ruling against further development of the record on the employer’s liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 56, and later denied the employer's request for reconsideration. The claimant was involved in a serious automobile accident while driving for an uninsured employer, leading to complex proceedings where the employer sought to assign liability to a general contractor, Cleanway Industries, Inc., and its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company. The appellate court found that the Board abused its discretion by sua sponte rescinding its prior directive to further develop the record, particularly without a compelling reason or apparent regulatory authorization. The court noted that the issue of liability had been pending for years and there were potential reasonable excuses for the employer's absence at certain hearings. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' Compensation LawBoard DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionRecord DevelopmentWaiver DefenseUninsured EmployerGeneral Contractor LiabilityInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
3
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

In re the Liquidation of Consolidated Mutual Insurance

The case concerns Arcade Cleaning Contractors, Inc.'s claim against the New York State Property and Liability Insurance Security Fund for reimbursement of a $1,500 payment made in a settlement. Arcade sought indemnification from its insolvent liability insurer, Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, for a claim arising from an employee's injury. The Superintendent of Insurance determined that the Security Fund, established by Insurance Law § 334, does not cover an insured's claim against its insolvent liability insurer resulting from contractual or common-law liability to indemnify a third party for employee injury. The Supreme Court initially allowed Arcade's claim, but the Appellate Division reversed, upholding the Superintendent's determination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the Superintendent's interpretation to be neither contrary to statute nor unreasonable, given the exclusion of workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance (defined in Insurance Law § 46 subdivision 15) from the Security Fund's coverage.

Insurance LawWorkers' CompensationInsolvencySecurity FundIndemnificationThird-Party ClaimsStatutory InterpretationEmployer's LiabilityContractual LiabilitySuperintendent of Insurance Authority
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. State Insurance Fund

National Union Fire Insurance Company (National Union) initiated a declaratory judgment action against the State Insurance Fund (SIF) seeking reimbursement for funds spent to settle an underlying personal injury lawsuit, Daza v City of New York. National Union had issued general liability policies to EMD Construction Corp. (EMD), which also covered the City of New York as an additional insured. SIF, in turn, insured EMD for workers' compensation and employers' liability. The Daza action, involving an injured EMD employee, was settled for $175,000, with a stipulation that EMD was 99% actively negligent and the City 1%. National Union disclaimed coverage for the City due to untimely notice and paid the settlement on behalf of EMD. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to National Union, finding SIF obligated to repay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that National Union's disclaimer was valid, the antisubrogation rule was not violated, and the indemnification agreement between EMD and the City was unenforceable due to the City's active negligence, thus shifting the obligation to SIF for common-law indemnification.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentIndemnificationSubrogationUntimely NoticeActive NegligenceContractual LiabilityWorkers' CompensationEmployer's LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 21,290 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