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

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2010

Tavella v. Skanska USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Angelo Tavella, an employee of Koehler Masonry Corp., suffered a personal injury at a construction site. Defendants and third-party plaintiffs Hazen and Sawyer, who oversaw construction management, filed a third-party complaint against Koehler for contractual indemnification. Hazen and Sawyer contended they were entitled to indemnification from Koehler based on Koehler's subcontract with general contractor Pegno/Tully, arguing they were either covered by the subcontract's general obligations or were third-party beneficiaries. Koehler sought summary judgment, asserting that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 precluded the action as Tavella did not sustain a grave injury, and the subcontract's specific indemnification clause only covered Pegno/Tully and the City, not Hazen and Sawyer. The court granted Koehler's motion for summary judgment, strictly construing the subcontract's indemnification provision and finding no clear intent to indemnify Hazen and Sawyer as a third-party.

Construction AccidentIndemnification AgreementThird-Party LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySubcontractor IndemnityContract InterpretationGrave Injury ExceptionThird-Party BeneficiaryNew York Construction Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Griffin v. New York State Department of Commerce

The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that the Department of Commerce was liable as an employer for a claimant injured while performing with the Jimmy Christie Orchestra during an "I Love New York" tourism event. The Board applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 56, deeming the Department of Commerce a contractor that subcontracted to the orchestra. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, finding that the Department of Commerce was not a 'contractor' under § 56 because it directly contracted with the orchestra and did not subcontract its own existing contract. The court clarified that § 56 applies when a contractor subcontracts its contract, not when an owner directly contracts for services. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's interpretation.

Workers' Compensation Law § 56Subcontractor LiabilityEmployer StatusStatutory ConstructionNew York Appellate DivisionEconomic Development LawReversal and RemittalContractor DefinitionDirect ContractingTourism Campaign
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. British Airways PLC

This case involves labor unions (plaintiffs) suing British Airways (defendant), an international air carrier, under the Railway Labor Act. The plaintiffs alleged that British Airways violated the status quo by subcontracting reconstruction work at its John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) terminal. The dispute arose after the defendant served notice of intended changes to their collective bargaining agreement, including a modification to the 'scope' clause regarding subcontracting. Plaintiffs argued that the subcontracting constituted a 'major dispute' and sought injunctive relief. The court, however, found that the defendant's action did not violate the status quo because the project was unprecedented and did not impact current employees. Consequently, the court ruled the dispute was 'minor' and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, dismissing the complaint.

Railway Labor ActStatus QuoMajor DisputeMinor DisputeSubcontractingCollective Bargaining AgreementPreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeAirline IndustryJFK Terminal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2010

Nascimento v. Bridgehampton Construction Corp.

This appeal concerns subcontractor liability under New York Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The plaintiff, an employee of a sub-sub-subcontractor (Figueiredo Construction), was injured in a fall. The general contractor was Bridgehampton Construction Corp., which subcontracted to Bayview Building & Framing Corp. (appellant), which then subcontracted to R&L Carpentry Corp., which further subcontracted to Figueiredo Construction. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) against Bayview and denied Bayview's cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that while differing witness testimony did not preclude summary judgment for Labor Law § 240 (1), it did for Labor Law § 241 (6) due to the need for a specific Industrial Code violation. Crucially, the court held that a question of fact exists regarding whether Bayview, as a subcontractor, had the authority to supervise and control the work, thereby qualifying as a statutory agent of the general contractor. This question of fact precludes summary judgment for the plaintiff on liability. Therefore, the order was modified to deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability, and Bayview's cross-motion denial was affirmed.

Subcontractor LiabilityLabor LawStatutory AgentSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentsWorker SafetyFraming WorkDelegation of DutySupervision and ControlQuestion of Fact
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halferty v. Flextronics Am., LLC

Patrick Halferty, a subcontracted employee of Outsource, LLC, was injured at a Flextronics facility in Austin when a Flextronics employee, Thomas Alvin Shaw, opened a roll-up door, causing Halferty to fall from a ladder. Halferty sued Flextronics for negligence and gross negligence. Flextronics moved for summary judgment, arguing entitlement to the Texas Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy defense by claiming to be Halferty's statutory employer through a contractual agreement with Titan Datacom, Inc., which subcontracted Outsource. The trial court granted summary judgment for Flextronics. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, holding that Flextronics did not

Exclusive Remedy DefenseNegligenceGross NegligenceStatutory EmployerSubcontractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeCommon Law TortInsurance CoverageContractual Agreement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sperry Systems Management Division v. Engineers Union, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers

This case concerns a labor dispute between Sperry Systems Management Division and the Engineers Union regarding subcontracting. Sperry sought to enjoin arbitration, while the Union counterclaimed to compel it, both filing motions for summary judgment. The central issue was whether a grievance, challenging the presence of subcontractor employees in Sperry's plant, was arbitrable under a collective bargaining agreement's clause explicitly excluding subcontracting decisions. The court, led by Judge Bauman, determined that the issue of arbitrability was for judicial determination, not the arbitrator. Finding the exclusionary clause clear and unambiguous, the court granted Sperry's motion, thereby enjoining the arbitration and denying the Union's counterclaim.

Labor DisputeArbitration EnjoinedCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontracting ClauseSummary JudgmentArbitrabilityContract InterpretationGrievance ProcedureLabor Management Relations ActExclusionary Clause
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olivares, Emilio v. Alfonso Mares, and Multi-Building, Inc.

Emilio Olivares, an injured construction worker, sued Alfonso Mares and Multi-Building, Inc., alleging negligence and premises liability after falling from an unsecured joist. Following a jury trial, the court awarded damages but reduced Olivares's past lost wages. On appeal, Olivares challenged the exclusion of a subcontract, the jury charge focusing on premises liability, the omission of Multi-Building from a negligent activity question, and the reduction of the lost wages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury charge, the exclusion of the subcontract, or the reduction of lost wages, and dismissed Multi-Building's conditional cross-points as moot.

NegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLost WagesJury Charge ErrorEvidence ExclusionSubcontract DisputeTexas LawAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2005

Goncalves v. 515 Park Avenue Condominium

This case concerns an appeal from an order that granted summary judgment dismissing a claim for contractual indemnification. The action stemmed from personal injuries sustained by a worker at a construction site. Second third-party plaintiff Hird Blaker, Inc. (subcontractor) sought indemnification from second third-party defendant Woodworks Construction Company, Inc. (sub-subcontractor and the worker's employer). The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the unsigned purchase order between Hird Blaker and Woodworks did not incorporate the indemnification provisions of a separate trade subcontract by reference. The court emphasized that incorporation clauses in subcontracts typically bind subcontractors only to provisions related to the scope, quality, character, and manner of work.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentConstruction LawSubcontractor AgreementIncorporation by ReferencePersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionNew York LawInsurance CoverageScope of Work
References
2
Case No. 03-08-00559-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2009

Matl Construction Company F/K/A Stewart-Matl, Ltd. And Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. Jim Connelly Masonry, Inc.

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal from a district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The core issue is whether Matl Construction Company and Jim Connelly Masonry, Inc. (JCM) had formed a subcontract that included an arbitration agreement. The district court had impliedly found no such agreement was formed. The dissent argues that the majority erred by not applying the correct no-evidence standard of review to the district court's implied finding. It contends that evidence supports the district court's conclusion that there was no 'meeting of the minds' regarding the material terms of the subcontract, particularly due to JCM's unaccepted attachment. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the district court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration should be affirmed.

arbitration agreementcontract formationsubcontract disputedissenting opinionTexas Court of Appealsimplied findings of factstandard of reviewmeeting of the mindsmotion to compel arbitrationTexas contract law
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 123 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