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

Biscan v. Brown

The provided text is a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., in a case regarding the apportionment of fault in a comparative fault system. While agreeing with the majority on some points, Justice Drowota disagrees with the exclusion of Dana Biscan from fault apportionment, despite Tennessee Code Annotated section 57-10-101 precluding legal liability for furnishing alcohol. The opinion argues that disallowing fault to an "effectively immune" tortfeasor, like Dana Biscan, contradicts established Tennessee comparative fault jurisprudence, particularly McIntyre v. Balentine, Carroll v. Whitney, and Dotson v. Blake. Justice Drowota contends that the majority's approach undermines the principle of linking liability to fault, blinds the jury to relevant evidence, and imposes liability disproportionately, thereby injecting confusion into settled law.

Comparative FaultTort LawAlcohol LiabilityStatutory ImmunityProximate CauseApportionment of FaultJudicial DissentTennessee LawMcIntyre v. BalentineCarroll v. Whitney
References
8
Case No. M1999-00463-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

Amelia Swafford v. Bobby M. Johnson

Amelia Swafford appealed a trial court's order favoring Bobby and Betty Johnson and Old Hickory Engineering & Machine Co., Inc. (OHEMCO). Swafford, a former bookkeeper for OHEMCO, was sued for negligence related to an overdue and incorrect rental payment, which led to an eviction lawsuit and attributed sales losses. The trial court found Swafford 55% at fault. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed, finding that both Swafford and the Johnsons shared equal fault in the rental payment issue due to miscommunication and shared responsibility, thereby barring recovery for the counter-plaintiffs.

Employee NegligenceComparative FaultBreach of Fiduciary DutyBookkeeper DutiesRental Payment DisputeDiscovery DisputesAppellate ProcedureTrial Court ReversalMaster-Servant LiabilityIndemnification
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. Meadowlakes Development Corp.

The dissenting judges argue against the majority's interpretation of CPLR Article 16, particularly regarding the limitation of liability for indemnification claims. They contend that a party found 50% or less at fault, such as third-party defendant Home Insulation and Supply, Inc., should have its indemnification liability limited to its proportionate share. The dissent asserts that the legislative intent of Article 16 was to protect low-fault defendants from disproportionate liability, a purpose contradicted by the majority's ruling that upholds joint and several liability for indemnitors irrespective of their fault percentage. The dissenting opinion highlights that applying joint and several liability in this case would unfairly hold Home, found only 10% at fault, liable for 100% of the loss. Consequently, the judges would modify the original order and judgment to limit Home's indemnification liability to 10% of the amount paid by Meadowlakes.

CPLR Article 16Joint and Several LiabilityIndemnificationProportionate LiabilityLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Third-Party ActionStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionCommon-Law Indemnification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bumgardner v. Vonk

This is a diversity action concerning an automobile accident in Sevier County, Tennessee, presided over by District Judge Jarvis. Plaintiff Donald Bumgardner's vehicle was rear-ended by defendant Edward A. Vonk on June 16, 1996, leading to alleged substantial damage and personal injuries. Plaintiffs filed suit on June 9, 1997. Defendant Vonk asserted in his answer that Sevier County shared fault due to roadway construction and signage issues, despite the county's general immunity from suit under T.C.A. § 29-20-201, and the expiration of the 12-month statute of limitations for claims against governmental entities. The court considered Tennessee's comparative fault principles, particularly T.C.A. § 20-1-119, which provides a 90-day grace period for joining non-parties, but noted its inapplicability to governmental entities like Sevier County. Citing *Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Company* and *McIntyre v. Balentine*, the court emphasized that fault can only be attributed to parties against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action. As plaintiffs are precluded from suing Sevier County due to immunity and statute of limitations, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, prohibiting the defendant from attributing fault to Sevier County.

Automobile AccidentComparative FaultGovernmental ImmunityStatute of LimitationsPartial Summary JudgmentTennessee LawDiversity JurisdictionTort Liability ActNon-party FaultRoadway Defect
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Williams

Amoco Oil appealed two judgments from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning arbitration for uninsured motorist and no-fault benefits. The first judgment, dated January 6, 1977, granted New Hampshire Insurance Company's application to stay arbitration, deeming Amoco Oil's coverage primary and New Hampshire's secondary for uninsured motorist benefits. The second judgment, dated March 30, 1977, permanently stayed arbitration for no-fault benefits under New Hampshire's policy. The Appellate Division affirmed both judgments, concluding that the claimant was "occupying" the Amoco Oil vehicle, making Amoco Oil primarily liable for uninsured motorist benefits. However, the claimant was precluded from receiving these benefits due to already receiving workers' compensation benefits in excess of the maximum, and was also ineligible for no-fault benefits under the New Hampshire policy.

Insurance DisputeArbitration ProceedingsUninsured Motorist CoverageNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' CompensationPrimary vs Secondary LiabilityAppellate DivisionNassau County Supreme CourtVehicle OccupancyBenefit Eligibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salamone v. Wincaf Properties, Inc.

This case explores the application of CPLR article 16, which limits joint and several liability, to common-law indemnification claims, particularly when a defendant's liability is purely vicarious under Labor Law § 240 (1). Wincaf, a construction site owner, was held vicariously liable for a laborer's injuries and sought full common-law indemnification from subcontractors Bronte and T.O.M.I. Construction, Inc., who were found actually at fault. Bronte argued that CPLR article 16 limited its indemnification liability to its proportionate share of fault (21.75%). The IAS court initially denied Bronte's argument based on CPLR 1602 (2) (ii), which protects indemnification rights, but later reversed itself. This appellate court concluded that CPLR 1602 (2) (ii) preserves common-law indemnification rights entirely, preventing article 16 from limiting a vicariously liable defendant's right to full indemnification from a culpable party, even if that party's fault is less than 50%. The appellate court reversed the IAS court's decision, reinstating Wincaf's right to complete indemnification from Bronte.

Joint and Several LiabilityCPLR Article 16IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Subcontractor LiabilityConstruction AccidentsNoneconomic DamagesStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maxwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This is an appeal concerning the award of counsel fees in a no-fault automobile accident case. The plaintiff appealed the Trial Term's decision denying an excess counsel fee award, which was initially granted at the statutory maximum. Plaintiff argued that the case involved novel issues related to an exclusion clause and the basis for disclaimer under No-Fault Law, warranting higher fees. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Term's decision, finding that the issues, while skillfully handled, were not sufficiently novel or unique to justify an excess fee under 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (8) (vii), as they relied on established contract law and statutory construction. The court also rejected the plaintiff's constitutional challenge regarding the impairment of contracts, clarifying that the fee limitation only applies to the insurer, not the client, and dismissed an ex parte communication claim as outside the record.

No-Fault BenefitsCounsel FeesExcess Fee AwardStatutory InterpretationContract Law PrinciplesConstitutional ChallengeImpairment ClauseAppellate DivisionInsurance RegulationsLegal Practice
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2008

Westchester Medical Center v. Lincoln General Insurance

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to recover no-fault medical benefits. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case by showing that statutory billing forms were mailed and received, and the defendant failed to either pay or deny the claim within the 30-day period. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that letters advising of an investigation tolled the statutory period and that the period was tolled pending a no-fault application. Additionally, defenses related to Workers' Compensation benefits or the assignor's failure to appear at an examination under oath were found insufficient to defeat the medical provider's right to benefits.

no-fault insurancemedical benefitssummary judgmentinsurance contractstatutory periodtimely denialworkers' compensationpolicy conditionpreclusion remedyappellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2008

LMK Psychological Service, P.C. v. American Transit Insurance

The plaintiffs, as assignees of no-fault benefits, sought to recover for health services rendered to beneficiaries of the defendant’s no-fault insurance contracts. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss several causes of action, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 11 because the injuries occurred during employment. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its original decision. The appellate court modified this determination, vacating the dismissal of those causes of action. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new determination after the Workers’ Compensation Board makes a finding on the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law, emphasizing the Board's primary jurisdiction over such factual issues.

Workers' CompensationNo-Fault InsuranceMedical PaymentsSummary JudgmentPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewRemittalInsurance LawAutomobile AccidentJurisdictional Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holloway v. HECI Exploration Co. Employees' Profit Sharing Plan

This case involves an appeal challenging a bankruptcy court's authority and its judgment concerning ERISA profit-sharing plan benefits. Pat S. Holloway, a former president of HECI Exploration Company, Inc., sought to recover benefits from the HECI Employees’ Profit Sharing Plan after being excluded from a partial distribution. The bankruptcy court determined the proceeding was 'related' but not 'core' and entered a final judgment finding Holloway was a qualified participant but had waived his right to the June 1984 distribution. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment, concluding that the Plan had effectively waived its right to an Article III determination and that the bankruptcy court's waiver findings were not clearly erroneous under Texas common law, which the parties stipulated to implicitly.

ERISAProfit Sharing PlanBankruptcy LawChapter 7Core ProceedingNon-Core Related ProceedingWaiver (Legal Doctrine)Article III CourtAppellate ReviewFiduciary Duty
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 1,064 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