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

Johnson v. General Design and Development, Inc.

Jerry Johnson was severely injured in November 1991 when a drill bound, causing him to fall from a stepladder at a construction site. He and his spouse sued the general contractor, General Design and Development, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), among other claims. General subsequently initiated a third-party action against subcontractors Omni Plumbing Company and Thomas P. Pleat Construction, Inc., seeking contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs were granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) by the Supreme Court. The defendants appealed, contending the injuries were not elevation-related. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the stepladder was inadequate and the accident constituted an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus establishing a prima facie violation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFall from HeightScaffolding LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryContractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityIndemnification
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. East 87th & 88th Street Contracting Co.

This case addresses a motion to set aside a $75,000 verdict, focusing on the interpretation of the 1969 amendment to Labor Law section 241 concerning general contractors' liability for construction worker injuries. The plaintiff, injured in 1971 while working for a subcontractor, sued the general contractor, who then sought indemnification from the subcontractor-employer. The court analyzed conflicting appellate decisions regarding whether the amendment eliminated the requirement to establish the general contractor's active control over the work. Ultimately, the court concluded that the law regarding control remains unchanged and set aside the verdict, dismissing the complaints. The decision also delved into policy considerations concerning workmen's compensation as the exclusive remedy against employers and incentives for workplace safety.

Labor Law § 241General Contractor LiabilityConstruction Worker InjurySubcontractor IndemnificationWorkmen's Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationAppellate Division ConflictSafety RegulationsTort ActionEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 1997

Samuel v. General Cinema Theaters, Inc.

This case involves the appellate review and affirmation of two orders issued by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. The first order granted summary judgment on liability to a plaintiff laborer under Labor Law § 240 (1), following an injury sustained when a scaffold toppled. The second order denied the third-party plaintiff general contractor's renewed motion for summary judgment regarding contractual and common-law indemnification against the third-party defendant subcontractor, who was the plaintiff's employer. The denial stemmed from unresolved issues of fact concerning the general contractor's supervision and control over the worksite and its authority to address safety violations. Both judicial orders were unanimously affirmed without costs.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffold AccidentIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party LitigationWorksite SafetyFactual DisputeAppellate ReviewConstruction InjuryEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff Michael Williams, a temporary laborer, was injured after falling from a ladder while working for Air Structures American Technologies, Inc. (ASAT) at a General Electric Company (GE) construction site. He and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. ASAT moved for summary judgment based on the special employee defense under Workers’ Compensation Law, and GE cross-moved for dismissal of a Labor Law claim. Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability against GE under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted ASAT’s motion to amend its answer and the plaintiffs’ cross motion against GE. On appeal, the court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs against GE on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding sufficient evidence of the ladder's failure. However, the appellate court reversed the denial of ASAT’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the plaintiff was a special employee of ASAT, thereby making workers’ compensation his exclusive remedy against ASAT. Consequently, the complaint against ASAT was dismissed.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentConstruction Site SafetySpecial Employment DoctrineTemporary StaffingAppellate ReviewContractor Liability
References
17
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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01902 [170 AD3d 1506]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2019

Patricola v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiff, Steven M. Patricola, commenced a premises liability action against defendants General Motors Corporation and GM Powertrain, seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained when he slipped on a walkway on their property. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the storm in progress doctrine. The Supreme Court denied their motion, and the defendants appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court concluded that defendants' own submissions raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether the storm had sufficiently abated prior to the accident, precluding the application of the storm in progress doctrine. Additionally, issues of fact existed regarding whether defendants created or had actual or constructive notice of the slippery condition.

premises liabilityslip and fallsummary judgmentstorm in progress doctrinesnow removallandowner liabilityfactual disputeappellate reviewnegligencehazardous condition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2009

Rice v. West 37th Group, LLC

Plaintiff's decedent, James Rice, a steamfitter, was injured in November 2004 after falling from a short, unsecured ladder while installing a sprinkler system. He commenced an action against the building owner, general contractor, and subcontractor Cord, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed claims against Cord and Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims against other defendants, but granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against the owner and general contractor. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its decision, finding no readily available adequate safety device to absolve defendants of liability. The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and dismissed the appeal regarding spoliation sanctions.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold LawElevation-related injurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety DevicesWorker NegligenceAppellate DivisionSpoliation of EvidenceConstruction Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Electric Co. v. M/V Gediz

General Electric Company brought an action against Turkish Cargo Lines under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) for alleged cargo damage. Turkish Cargo Lines moved for summary judgment, asserting that General Electric's claim was barred by COGSA's one-year statute of limitations. General Electric contended that Turkish Cargo was estopped from raising this defense due to its conduct, which supposedly induced General Electric not to file suit within the required period. The court conducted a hearing to assess the validity of the estoppel claim. Ultimately, the court found that General Electric failed to demonstrate sufficient conduct by Turkish Cargo to warrant an estoppel, noting that claimed extensions were invalid or made by unauthorized agents. Consequently, Turkish Cargo Lines' motion for summary judgment was granted, and General Electric's complaint was dismissed as time-barred.

COGSAStatute of LimitationsEstoppelSummary JudgmentCargo DamageMaritime LawShipping DisputeAgent AuthoritySettlement NegotiationsTime Barred
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gould v. General Mills, Inc.

Plaintiff Gould, a longshoreman, was injured in 1973 while unloading a vessel and sued General Mills, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of warranty due to defective equipment. General Mills, the vessel's owner and cargo consignee, then filed a third-party complaint against Great Lakes Associates, Inc., the stevedore and Gould's employer, claiming negligence and breach of Great Lakes's warranty of workmanlike performance. Great Lakes moved for summary judgment, citing the exclusivity provision of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 905) as immunity from General Mills's indemnity claim. The court denied Great Lakes's motion, ruling that General Mills's claim was not solely based on Gould's injury but primarily on Great Lakes's alleged breach of independent contractual obligations and implied warranties to perform work safely.

Longshoreman injuryNegligence claimBreach of warrantyThird-party actionSummary judgment motionLongshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActExclusivity provisionIndemnification claimWorkmanlike performanceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 5,330 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