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. 16 NY3d 706
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2011

Federal Insurance v. International Business MacHines Corp.

Federal Insurance Company (Federal) sought a declaration that its excess insurance policy did not cover attorneys' fees paid by International Business Machines Corporation and the IBM Personal Pension Plan (collectively, IBM) in a class action lawsuit (*Cooper v IBM Personal Pension Plan*). The *Cooper* action alleged violations of ERISA pertaining to age discrimination. IBM sought reimbursement from Federal after exhausting an underlying Zurich policy. The core dispute revolved around whether the disputed language in Federal's "follow form" policy extended coverage to IBM's actions as a plan settlor, which are not considered fiduciary acts under ERISA. The Supreme Court initially denied Federal's motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to Federal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the policy's plain language limited coverage to acts of an insured undertaken in its capacity as an ERISA fiduciary, which IBM was not in this instance.

Insurance Policy InterpretationERISAFiduciary DutyExcess InsuranceSummary JudgmentPlan SettlorEmployee Benefit PlansContract LawPolicy CoverageAge Discrimination
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2012

Ali v. State

The claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims that dismissed their claim for personal injuries. The incident occurred on February 24, 2009, at the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board office when a security guard, reacting to news of his grandmother's death, punched a wooden bench causing it to fall on the claimant. The claimant subsequently filed a personal injury claim against the State of New York. The Court of Claims granted the defendant's application to dismiss the claim, determining that the security guard was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to his employment, and his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, thus precluding vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentForeseeabilityEmployee MisconductClaim DismissalCourt of Claims DecisionAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2004

Feldman v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

The plaintiff, a production manager for Pure Tech APR, sustained personal injuries in 2001 after falling from a railcar while performing an inspection. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against General Electric Railcar Services Corporation (GE Rail), CSX Transportation, Inc., New York & Atlantic Railway Company (NYARC), and Trinity Industries, Inc., alleging strict products liability, negligence under federal safety acts, and Labor Law violations. GE Rail subsequently filed a third-party claim against Pure Tech for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, citing preemption by the Federal Safety Appliance Act (SAA) and Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), and granted GE Rail's indemnification claim. The appellate court affirmed this decision, reinforcing that federal law preempts state-level product liability claims concerning railcar safety appliances and that the railcar's design complied with federal regulations, also upholding the contractual indemnification.

Personal InjuryRailcar SafetyFederal PreemptionSafety Appliance Act (SAA)Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA)Strict Products LiabilityNegligenceContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boles v. Dormer Giant, Inc.

This case addresses whether Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 shields an employer from third-party liability for contribution or indemnity when the employer failed to secure workers' compensation for an injured employee. Plaintiff Douglas Boles was injured in a scaffolding collapse while working for Personal Touch Home Improvements, Inc., a subcontractor of Dormer Giant, Inc. Boles sued Dormer Giant, which then brought a third-party action against Personal Touch. The lower courts dismissed Dormer Giant's third-party complaint, concluding Personal Touch was protected by Section 11. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an employer must comply with Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 by securing compensation for employees to benefit from the protections of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 against third-party liability, reinforcing the legislative intent behind the 1996 Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act.

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11Employer LiabilityThird-Party ContributionThird-Party IndemnityGrave InjuryFailure to Secure Workers' CompensationLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffolding AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2009

Zuckerberg v. Port Authority

The injured plaintiff, a police lieutenant for the Port Authority, sustained injuries after tripping over a door saddle at John F. Kennedy International Airport. After receiving workers' compensation, he and his wife filed a lawsuit against the Port Authority under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The Port Authority moved for summary judgment, arguing FELA was inapplicable and workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court granted the motion, concluding that FELA did not apply because the alleged negligence was not connected to the Port Authority's interstate railway operations. This appellate court affirmed the decision, emphasizing that for FELA to apply, the defendant's negligent act must be committed while it is engaging in interstate commerce related to its railway operations, which was not the case here as the accident occurred in an airport office.

Federal Employers' Liability ActPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentInterstate CommerceRailroad LiabilityPolice EmploymentAirport AccidentPort AuthorityExclusive RemedyAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1988

Gallagher v. Rouse Co.

The plaintiff, injured by an electric radial saw during pier construction at the South Street Seaport, received Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) payments. Subsequently, the plaintiff sued the pier's lessor, The Rouse Co., and the saw's manufacturer, Skil Corp., for personal injuries. Skil Corp. then impleaded the plaintiff’s employer, J. Rich Steers, Inc., seeking indemnity and contribution. J. Rich Steers, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing that the LHWCA bars such claims against employers of maritime employees. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion. On appeal, the order was affirmed. While the court agreed the injury occurred on navigable waters, a question of fact remained regarding whether the plaintiff was engaged in 'maritime employment' as defined by the LHWCA, which is necessary for the Act to bar the third-party claims.

Personal InjuryLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActThird-Party ClaimsIndemnityContributionSummary JudgmentMaritime EmploymentNavigable WatersAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salvamoser v. Pratt Institute

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Pratt Institute and 205 Ashland Associates, for personal injuries resulting from a criminal assault. The plaintiff was robbed on a public street near her residence, owned by 205 Ashland Associates and leased by Pratt Institute, then forced into her apartment and to a bank. She alleged negligence by the defendants for a defective or open front door, contending they failed to provide adequate security. The Supreme Court found the defendants' actions were not a substantial cause of the injury, as the criminal act originated off-premises and the plaintiff would have been compelled into her apartment regardless of the door's security. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal, concluding that the causal connection between any negligence and the criminal act was too attenuated as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryCriminal AssaultNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCausationProximate CauseLandlord LiabilityAppellate ReviewSecurity Measures
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dinkins v. Farley

This case addresses a question of first impression regarding employer liability under respondeat superior for an employee's accident while driving to a tuition-subsidized class. The plaintiff sustained personal injuries in an accident involving an automobile operated by Victor F. Farley, an employee of Xerox Corporation, who was driving to a class funded by Xerox's tuition aid program. The plaintiff sought to hold Xerox liable, arguing Victor was acting within the scope of his employment. The court analyzed the nature of the tuition aid program, emphasizing the primary personal benefit to the employee, lack of employer control over travel, and the contingent nature of the tuition reimbursement. Ultimately, the court determined that Victor's activity was not sufficiently connected to his employment to invoke respondeat superior, granting Xerox's motion to dismiss and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Respondeat SuperiorScope of EmploymentTuition Aid ProgramPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentCPLR 3211CPLR 3212Automobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityEmployee Education
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kaplan v. Zodiac Watch Co.

Judge Bergan, in a dissenting opinion, argues against the strict interpretation of the 'personal acts' rule in Workers' Compensation cases, especially when an employee is assigned to work far from home. He contends that injuries sustained during personal activities, such as getting dressed to continue an employment-related journey, should be compensable, drawing parallels to cases where recreational activities or similar personal acts were covered. Bergan cites several precedents where employees working away from home were granted compensation for injuries incurred during activities that could be considered 'personal'. He emphasizes that an employer sending a worker far from their normal environment should bear the risk of injury in necessary personal activities. The order, however, was reversed, indicating a majority opinion that did not align with Bergan's dissenting view.

Workers' CompensationPersonal Acts DoctrineCourse of EmploymentDissenting OpinionForeign AssignmentTravelEmployee InjuryCompensabilityPremises RuleRisk of Injury
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,094 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