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

McLaughlin v. Midrox Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiffs sought to compel Midrox Insurance Company to indemnify the Blodgett Brothers Partnerships for a $1 million judgment in an underlying personal injury action. The accident involved a motorcycle operated by plaintiff Charles R. McLaughlin and a pickup truck driven by Ronald Blodgett. Midrox had disclaimed coverage, arguing the accident occurred off insured premises and involved a registered vehicle. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the farmowner's policy did provide coverage. The court determined that public roadways used for transporting materials between farm parcels could be considered 'insured premises' and that the pickup truck's agricultural registration did not negate coverage given its exclusive use for farming purposes.

Personal InjuryFarmowner's InsuranceInsurance CoverageAgricultural TruckPolicy InterpretationOff-Premises AccidentPublic RoadwaysSummary JudgmentIndemnificationVehicle and Traffic Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cerbasi v. County Metal & Glass, Inc.

A claimant injured their left arm while working at a New York construction site for a New Jersey employer insured by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJMIC). A dispute arose regarding coverage, with the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board determining the policy covered the accident because New York was not an explicitly excluded state and NJMIC’s attempt to amend the policy was ineffective. NJMIC appealed, arguing the Board erred in its coverage finding and that Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (5) notice requirements did not apply to partial cancellations. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the Board's determination on coverage implicit and that NJMIC failed to demonstrate an effective exclusion or proper cancellation under Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). The court also noted NJMIC's argument regarding partial cancellation was unpreserved.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoveragePolicy ExclusionNew York LawNew Jersey BusinessStatutory ComplianceCancellation NoticeAppellate ReviewJurisdictionLeft Arm Injury
References
9
Case No. 03 Civ. 0332(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

In Re September 11th Liability Insurance Coverage Cases

This opinion and order addresses two Rule 12(c) motions regarding insurance coverage for the World Trade Center properties following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sought a declaration that it is an "Additional Insured" under Zurich American Insurance Company's policies, while World Trade Center Properties LLC (WTCP) sought a declaration that Zurich is obligated to cover defense costs. The court, presided over by District Judge Hellerstein, denied both motions. It found ambiguity in the binder regarding the Port Authority's "Additional Insured" status, stating that the issue was premature without further discovery. Furthermore, the court held that New York Insurance Regulation 107 does not require rewriting Zurich's binder and policies to include defense costs, considering the unique circumstances, the sophistication of the insured, and the fact that Zurich explicitly excluded defense costs, which Silverstein (WTCP's affiliate) accepted after failing to secure conventional coverage. The court also affirmed supplemental jurisdiction over the insurance claims due to their close relation to the underlying September 11th liability cases.

Insurance CoverageSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterRule 12(c) MotionDeclaratory ReliefAdditional Insured StatusDefense CostsInsurance BinderNew York Insurance LawRegulation 107
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Admiral Insurance v. Joy Contractors, Inc.

This case addresses an insurance coverage dispute arising from a tower crane collapse during construction. Plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company, an excess insurer, denied coverage to defendant Joy Contractors, Inc., the crane operator, and several additional insureds, citing a 'residential construction activities' exclusion and Joy’s alleged misrepresentations in its underwriting application. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division had issued differing rulings on these key issues, particularly concerning the applicability of the exclusion and whether alleged misrepresentations by a named insured could affect additional insureds' coverage. The Court of Appeals found the Appellate Division erred in its assessment of evidence regarding the residential construction exclusion and in its application of precedent concerning additional insureds. Consequently, the higher court reinstated Admiral's claims for rescission, reformation, and declarations related to Joy's misrepresentations against all defendants, while affirming the ambiguity of an LLC exclusion.

Insurance CoverageCrane CollapseExcess PolicyCGL PolicyResidential Construction ExclusionMaterial MisrepresentationAdditional InsuredsRescissionReformationAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2002

A.J. McNulty & Co. v. Lloyds of London

Plaintiff construction project subcontractors, holding general liability insurance from Lloyds of London and workers' compensation policies from AIG, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Lloyds. This action sought to compel Lloyds to defend and indemnify them in third-party lawsuits arising from worker injuries and deaths on a construction project, where AIG had already defended the plaintiffs in their capacity as third-party defendants. The Supreme Court granted Lloyds' cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that an employers' liability exclusion in the Lloyds policy validly precluded coverage for employee bodily injury or death related to employment. Furthermore, the court found that Lloyds' disclaimer of coverage was timely, as the insurer's obligation to disclaim arose only when it was served with the declaratory judgment action papers in September 2001, and it disclaimed shortly thereafter. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this decision, rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments.

Insurance LawEmployers' Liability ExclusionDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentDisclaimer of CoverageTimeliness of DisclaimerThird-Party ActionsGeneral Liability PolicyWorkers' Compensation PolicySubcontractors
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Kolodny

Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine if it was obligated to indemnify Chaim S. Kolodny or provide coverage for claims stemming from a fatal 1990 automobile accident. GEICO argued a policy exclusion applied because the vehicle was for Kolodny's regular use. The Supreme Court initially granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that GEICO's disclaimer, issued over a year after receiving notice of the accident, was untimely and lacked an adequate explanation for the delay. Consequently, GEICO was found to be obligated to provide coverage. The appeal from the intermediate order was dismissed.

Insurance CoverageAutomobile AccidentDeclaratory JudgmentTimely DisclaimerPolicy ExclusionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEstate AdministrationIndemnificationRegular Use Clause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lapolla Industries, Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by Lapolla Industries, Inc. against its insurers, Aspen Specialty Insurance Company and Aspen Specialty Insurance Management, Inc., seeking a declaration of coverage for an underlying personal injury lawsuit (Markey Lawsuit). The Markey Lawsuit alleges personal injury and property damage due to the 'off-gassing' of Lapolla's spray foam insulation. The insurers denied coverage citing pollution exclusion clauses in their policies. The court found a clear conflict between Texas and New York law regarding the interpretation of these clauses, with Texas law viewing them as unambiguous. Applying Texas law based on Lapolla's domicile and the worldwide coverage of the policies, the court concluded that the pollution exclusion clauses unambiguously bar coverage for the Markey Lawsuit claims, thus granting the insurers' motion to dismiss.

Insurance CoveragePollution Exclusion ClauseDeclaratory JudgmentChoice of LawConflict of LawsTexas LawNew York LawSpray Foam InsulationToxic ExposurePersonal Injury Litigation
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hastings Development, LLC v. Evanston Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Hastings Development, LLC (Plaintiff) and Evanston Insurance Company (Defendant) regarding insurance coverage. Hastings sought a declaratory judgment that Evanston was obligated to indemnify it under a commercial general liability policy for a personal injury lawsuit, the Cohen Action. Evanston had denied coverage, citing an "Employer's Liability" exclusion. The Court found the exclusion ambiguous and, applying the contra proferentem rule, granted Hastings' motion for summary judgment, mandating indemnification. Additionally, the Court dismissed Hastings' claim for bad faith denial of insurance coverage, as New York law does not recognize it as a separate tort in these circumstances.

Insurance CoverageCommercial General Liability PolicyDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer's Liability ExclusionContract InterpretationAmbiguity in Insurance PoliciesContra Proferentem RuleSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissBad Faith Claim
References
52
Case No. 222 AD2d 184
Regular Panel Decision

Nuzzo v. Griffin Technology Inc.

Plaintiffs Karen L. Patzer and Patricia E. Nuzzo, employees of Syracuse University (SU), were injured while operating a cash register manufactured by Griffin Technology Incorporated (Griffin). SU, contractually an additional insured under Griffin's liability policy with Federal Insurance Company (Federal), sought coverage after being impleaded by Griffin. Federal retroactively added SU as an additional insured but subsequently disclaimed coverage based on an employer's liability exclusion. The court ruled Federal's four-month delay in disclaiming coverage to SU was untimely, making the exclusion inapplicable. Consequently, the antisubrogation rule required dismissal of Griffin's third-party actions against SU, and SU's counterclaims for breach of contract were dismissed as moot.

Untimely DisclaimerAdditional InsuredEmployer's Liability ExclusionAntisubrogation RuleContractual Duty to InsureRetroactive CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndemnificationContribution
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2013

Broome County v. The Travelers Indemnity Company

This case involves cross-appeals from an order concerning an insurance dispute. The plaintiff, an insured party, experienced property damage due to silica dust migration during construction, which they claimed was covered by their first-party insurance policy with the defendants, The Travelers Indemnity Company and The Travelers Companies, Inc. The defendants disclaimed coverage based on pollution and faulty workmanship exclusions. While the Supreme Court initially found issues of fact, the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court ruled that both the pollution exclusion, defining silica dust as a pollutant, and the faulty workmanship exclusion, pertaining to flawed construction processes, unambiguously applied to bar coverage. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to the defendants, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Insurance PolicyFirst-Party CoveragePollution ExclusionFaulty Workmanship ExclusionSummary JudgmentSilica DustProperty DamageAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationAmbiguity in Policy
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,837 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