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. 2000 WL 178191
Regular Panel Decision

Selby v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance

Adrian and Jill Selby sued Principal Life Insurance Company, alleging various errors in processing their health insurance claims. They challenged Principal's interpretation of an infertility treatment exclusion and its claims review procedures under ERISA. The court considered motions for class certification for four proposed classes. Class I, addressing Principal's online claims review process for altering diagnoses, was certified. Classes II and III, concerning medically necessary infertility treatments and New York Insurance Law violations respectively, were not certified for class-wide adjudication, though individual claims were permitted. Class IV, challenging the sufficiency of claim denial letters, was not certified immediately due to the named plaintiffs' lack of standing for injunctive relief, but conditional certification was offered upon identification of a new suitable plaintiff.

ERISAClass ActionHealth InsuranceClaims DenialInfertility ExclusionOnline ReviewMedical BenefitsStandingFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Benefit Plans
References
23
Case No. 02 MDL 1499, No. 153, 03 Civ. 4524, No. 83
Regular Panel Decision

In Re South African Apartheid Litigation

This opinion addresses two class actions brought by South Africans against multinational corporations under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), alleging aiding and abetting torts related to the apartheid system. Specifically, the Court considered Fujitsu Limited's motion to dismiss claims against it. Plaintiffs contended that Fujitsu's subsidiary, International Computers Limited (ICL), supplied computer systems used by the apartheid-era South African government to enforce racial pass laws. The Court found that while ICL had a relationship with the South African government that predated its deep relationship with Fujitsu, the plaintiffs failed to present plausible allegations of a principal-agent relationship between Fujitsu and ICL during the relevant period of ICL's alleged unlawful activities (1981-1986). The decision to grant Fujitsu's motion to dismiss was based on the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating Fujitsu's direct control over ICL's specific business activities concerning South Africa's pass laws, distinguishing it from other cases where vicarious liability was established.

Alien Tort Claims ActApartheid LitigationCorporate LiabilityVicarious LiabilityMotion to DismissAgency RelationshipSouth AfricaInternational LawHuman RightsFujitsu
References
27
Case No. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tower Insurance v. Mike's Pipe Yard & Building Supply Corp.

An insurer (Plaintiff) filed a motion for summary judgment to disclaim coverage for an underlying personal injury action, citing the insured's (Mike’s Pipe Yard and Building Supply) failure to provide timely notice of an occurrence as stipulated in the liability insurance policy. The insured had initially informed its broker about the incident, assuming the broker acted as the insurer's agent; however, no such principal-agent relationship existed. The trial court initially denied the plaintiff's motion, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion and declaring that the plaintiff had no duty to defend or indemnify in the underlying action due to the untimely notification.

Insurance Coverage DisputeTimely Notice ProvisionDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Broker AgencyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPersonal Injury Action
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02403
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

Betancourt v. City of New York

Plaintiff, an assistant principal, was injured by a student with a history of violent behavior while assisting a social worker in restraining the student. She sought to impose liability on municipal defendants, citing the student's history, alleged assurances from the principal, and failures in safety protocols, predicating her theory on the existence of a special relationship. However, the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint for failing to allege or provide a factual basis for such a special relationship in her initial filings. Furthermore, her subsequent testimony contradicted her later affidavit regarding definite promises and justifiable reliance, thereby failing to establish the necessary elements for a special relationship. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Municipal Tort LiabilitySpecial Relationship DoctrineNegligenceNotice of ClaimSummary JudgmentFeigned Issue of FactAffirmative Duty to ProtectJustifiable RelianceSchool SafetyAssistant Principal Injury
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gallagher ex rel. Gallagher v. Houlihan Lawrence Real Estate

Claimant, the wife of a deceased real estate agent, sought workers' compensation benefits, asserting her husband was an employee of the real estate firm. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, relying on an independent contractor agreement. On appeal, the court found that the WCLJ prematurely closed the hearing, preventing the claimant from presenting further evidence regarding the employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to fully develop the record on this crucial issue.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewRemittalSubstantial EvidenceRight of ControlReal Estate AgentDeath BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rosenblum & Southeastern Clothing Corp.

This case addresses whether Morris A. Scharff, individually, contracted in writing to arbitrate with the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Scharff, as president and sole stockholder of Southeastern Clothing Corp., signed a supplemental collective bargaining agreement. The Union sought arbitration, but Southeastern Clothing Corp. and Scharff moved for a stay of arbitration as to Scharff personally. The court found that Scharff's signature as 'Pres.' was insufficient to bind him individually, emphasizing the need for 'clear and explicit evidence' to superadd personal liability to a disclosed principal-agent relationship. Consequently, the court concluded that Morris Scharff, individually, did not contract in writing to arbitrate.

Arbitration AgreementPersonal LiabilityCorporate OfficerSole StockholderPrincipal-Agent RelationshipCollective BargainingStay of ArbitrationContract InterpretationLabor LawNew York Courts
References
5
Case No. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06405 [199 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Paratore (Bankers Life & Cas. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Paul Paratore, an insurance broker and agent, filed for unemployment insurance benefits after his relationship with Bankers Life and Casualty Company (BLC) ended. The Department of Labor determined him eligible, a decision affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found his services were not statutorily exempt and that BLC exercised sufficient control to establish an employment relationship under unemployment insurance law. BLC appealed, arguing its agreement satisfied Labor Law § 511 (21) and challenging the employment relationship finding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, agreeing that the statutory requirements were not met and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment relationship between BLC and the claimant.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorInsurance IndustryLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewControl TestStatutory InterpretationAgent AgreementBenefits Eligibility
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 1999

Claim of Jhoda v. Mauser Service, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on December 3, 1999. The Board ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Mauser Service, Inc., doing business as Nu Nu Car Service. The claimant, a livery car driver, was shot in March 1993 while on a call directed by the corporation’s dispatcher and asserted a workers’ compensation claim. The corporation contested the claim, arguing it had no relationship with the claimant and that its drivers were independent contractors. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s findings, concluding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the employer-employee relationship and the accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractor disputeLivery car driver injuryRadio-dispatched service liabilitySubstantial evidence reviewCredibility findingControl test for employmentAccident arising out of employmentAppellate affirmanceWorkers' compensation appeal
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,821 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