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
Jul 14, 2005

Smith v. 21 West LLC Limited Liability Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Bravo’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss defendant 21 West’s cross claims for contribution and indemnification. Bravo failed to establish that the plaintiff was its employee or that it operated as a joint venture, thereby not barring 21 West’s cross claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Furthermore, Bravo could not demonstrate insufficient control over the work to negate negligence liability, nor prove supervision over 21 West. The appellate court found that the parties’ conduct, including Bravo commencing work and obtaining an insurance certificate, manifested an intent to be bound by an unsigned contract. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously affirmed the denial of Bravo's summary judgment motion, upholding 21 West's cross claims.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawCross ClaimsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEmployee StatusJoint VentureNegligence Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kerr v. Black Clawson Co.

Plaintiff Dean E. Kerr sustained injuries while operating a machine as an employee of a third-party defendant, leading him and his wife to sue Black Clawson Converting Machinery Corporation, the machine's manufacturer, for various liabilities. Black Clawson then initiated a third-party action against Kerr's employer for contribution or indemnification, alleging negligence. The employer moved for summary judgment, contending that a 1996 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which generally eliminated employer liability for third-party contribution except in cases of "grave injury," barred the claim. The Supreme Court denied this motion, prompting the employer's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial, referencing its prior decision in Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., which held that the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 amendment does not apply to actions pending before September 10, 1996.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionContributionIndemnificationSummary JudgmentGrave InjuryStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationOmnibus Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 1996Employer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.

This case addresses post-trial motions concerning the liability of Atlantic Container Lines (ACL), a stevedore, to Bucyrus-Erie Co., a truck-crane manufacturer and third-party plaintiff. The central issue is whether ACL enjoys immunity from contribution or indemnity claims under 33 U.S.C. § 905, following a jury finding that both Bucyrus-Erie's negligent manufacturing and ACL's incompetent employee (Antonio Fuet) equally contributed to the injury of Adolfo Millan and death of Joseph Zapico, ACL's employees. ACL argued it was immune as a compensation-paying stevedore and lacked an indemnity agreement. The court found that Bucyrus-Erie's claim was not 'on account of' the employee injury, but rather for partial indemnification based on ACL's implied warranty of workmanlike performance or a quasi-contractual theory. The court concluded that extending third-party benefits or apportioning damages based on fault would not violate statutory immunity and would be equitable, especially given manufacturers' lack of control over stevedoring functions and increasing strict liability. Therefore, ACL's motion for judgment in its favor was denied, Bucyrus-Erie Co.'s motion to amend its pleadings was granted, and Celia Zapico's motion to strike the jury's finding of contributory negligence was denied.

Stevedore LiabilityMaritime IndemnityLongshoremen's ActThird-Party ClaimsProduct Manufacturer NegligenceEmployee IncompetenceContribution LawWarranty of Workmanlike PerformanceFederal Civil ProcedurePost-Trial Litigation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1992

Baca v. HRH Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dismissing a third-party plaintiff's claim for contribution. The court determined that a pre-verdict "high-low" agreement between the plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff general contractor constituted a release under General Obligations Law § 15-108, thereby barring the contribution claim against the third-party defendant. It was also noted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal the dismissal of the third-party claim. Furthermore, the court found that the third-party plaintiff's purported assignment of its contribution claim to the plaintiff was void, as no claim to assign existed given that its liability was limited to less than its equitable share by the settlement. The court also questioned whether such an assignment could circumvent the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions.

High-low agreementContribution claimGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108ReleaseCPLR 5511Standing to appealWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivityEquitable shareAssignment of claimThird-party practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. ADJ1526910 (LAO 0881311) ADJ1183697 (LAO 0881312)
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

MARGARITA GIUSTRA vs. PRIMARY PROVIDER MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, DELOS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Delos Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the arbitrator's report, which found that a prior Compromise and Release agreement between the applicant and Delos Insurance Company only settled a specific injury, not the continuous trauma claim. This decision allowed National Liability and Fire Insurance Company's petition for contribution against Delos Insurance Company for a portion of benefits paid for the continuous trauma injury. The arbitrator also determined that prior conflicting judicial decisions did not bar Delos Insurance Company from being joined in the contribution proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMargarita GiustraPrimary Provider ManagementNational Liability and Fire Insurance CompanyDelos Insurance CompanyADJ1526910ADJ1183697Petition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportCompromise and Release
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ILGWU National Retirement Fund v. B.B. Liquidating Corp.

The ILGWU National Retirement Fund moved to amend its complaint and for summary judgment, while B.B. Liquidating Corp. cross-moved for summary judgment. The Fund alleges BBLC, operating as Blassport, contributed to the Fund, then sold assets, incurring withdrawal liability when the purchaser ceased contributions. BBLC denies ever contributing to the Fund and thus denies liability. The court granted the motion to amend the complaint, allowing the Fund to correct the defendant's name and add Norman Zeiler as a defendant. However, both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied due to a material factual dispute regarding whether Blassport-BBLC ever made contributions to the Fund, which is pivotal to determining BBLC's obligation to seek arbitration.

Pension benefitsMultiemployer planERISAMPPAAWithdrawal liabilityArbitrationSummary judgmentAmended complaintCorporate lawShareholder liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Allen & Coon Construction Co.

Gordon Wagner, employed by Frank Crown Plastering Company, was electrocuted, leading to Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA), the compensation carrier, paying nearly $30,000 in benefits. Wagner then sued Allen & Coon Construction Company (A&C) and Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) as third-party tortfeasors. TEIA intervened to recover its expenditures. A&C settled with Wagner for $80,000 and agreed to indemnify Wagner against TEIA's claims. HL&P later settled with Wagner for another $80,000, and TEIA endorsed the checks, with Wagner receiving the full proceeds. Wagner then assigned his indemnity rights against A&C to TEIA. TEIA sued A&C, and A&C sought contribution from HL&P. The trial court granted summary judgment for TEIA against A&C and for A&C for contribution from HL&P. On appeal, the court affirmed TEIA's judgment against A&C, based on the "first money" rule, establishing A&C's liability to TEIA upon its initial settlement with Wagner. However, the court reversed the judgment awarding A&C contribution from HL&P, concluding that A&C had only settled its own liability and failed to establish a claim for contribution.

Worker's Compensation SubrogationThird-Party TortfeasorSettlement AgreementIndemnity AgreementSummary JudgmentContributionJoint and Several LiabilityFirst Money RuleAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. ADJ2497883 (SFO 0450940) ADJ3261393 (SFO 0504693)
Regular
Apr 30, 2010

JANETTE HARDIN vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CHARTIS INSURANCE, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves Chartis Insurance seeking reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision setting the date of cumulative trauma injury for Janette Hardin's breast cancer as May 28, 1997, not the previously stipulated date of May 16, 2001. Chartis argued the stipulated date was res judicata and could not be altered, especially in a contribution proceeding. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming that contribution proceedings allow for a relitigation of liability and the determination of the true date of injury based on facts, not prior stipulations between the applicant and one defendant. The Board reasoned that findings of liability in the primary case are not binding in supplemental contribution proceedings.

Cumulative traumaDate of injuryContribution proceedingsRes judicataStipulated awardLabor Code section 5500.5Apportionment of liabilityCase-in-chiefSupplemental proceedingsGreenwald v. Carey Distribution Company
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re United Department Stores, Inc.

The debtors, including United Department Stores, Inc. and others, sought to reclassify withdrawal liability claims from the Amalgamated Insurance Fund. These claims, arising from collective bargaining agreements for multiemployer pension contributions, were initially filed as administrative priority expenses. The Fund argued that the liability, triggered post-petition, should retain its priority status as a necessary cost for preserving the estates. However, the Court determined that withdrawal liability, based on pre-petition factors and not directly compensating employees for post-petition services or contributing to the estate's preservation, did not meet the criteria for administrative expenses under the Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, the Debtors' motions were granted, reclassifying the Fund's claims as general unsecured claims.

BankruptcyWithdrawal LiabilityMultiemployer Pension PlanAdministrative ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsEmployee BenefitsERISAMPPAAChapter 11Chapter 7
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 6,304 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