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
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

XL Specialty Insurance v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.

This memorandum opinion addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case originating from an explosion that killed two workers, one each from Kiewit Offshore Services, LTD (general contractor) and R.B.T. Welders, Inc. (subcontractor). Relatives of the deceased workers filed a negligence lawsuit. XL Specialty Insurance Company, RBT's insurer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Kiewit, denying a duty to defend or indemnify. Kiewit, in turn, sought indemnification from RBT and coverage from XL. The Court granted Kiewit's motion for summary judgment in part, holding RBT must indemnify Kiewit for a $4 million settlement payment, specific attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest, finding Kiewit faced potential liability and the settlement was reasonable. The Court denied Kiewit's claim for undocumented expenses and denied XL's motion for summary judgment asserting statutory employer and borrowed servant defenses under workers' compensation laws for Kiewit, concluding these defenses were not applicable.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityBorrowed Servant DoctrineStatutory EmployerNegligence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hannah v. American Republic Insurance

Phil Hannah filed an action against American Republic Insurance Company (ARIC), alleging interference with his ERISA rights under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 due to employment termination, and wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Hannah’s employment with Americare, an ARIC subsidiary, was terminated in August 2004, after which he signed a Separation Agreement and Release. The Court granted ARIC’s motion for summary judgment on the ERISA § 510 claim, finding the Release valid and rejecting Hannah’s argument of economic duress. For the ERISA § 502 claim, the Court also ruled in favor of ARIC, determining that Hannah failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Plan, and found his futility and waiver arguments to be without merit. Consequently, the Court granted ARIC’s motion for entry of judgment on the benefits claim, denied Hannah’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the entire case with judgment entered in favor of the Defendant.

ERISASummary JudgmentEmployee Benefits PlanWrongful TerminationAdministrative RemediesEconomic DuressRelease AgreementWaiver of ClaimsFutility DoctrineDeferred Compensation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schaffer v. Benefit Plan of Exxon Corp.

Plaintiffs Phillip W. Schaffer and David W. Stiefel, former employees of Exxon, filed a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) after being denied disability benefits by the Benefit Plan of Exxon Corporation. Both plaintiffs sustained on-the-job elbow injuries. Defendant Exxon moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Plan Administrator's denial of benefits was justified by substantial evidence, indicating that the plaintiffs were either not incapacitated or did not adhere to prescribed treatment plans. The Court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review and determined that the Plan Administrator's decisions were indeed supported by adequate evidence. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and dismissed their claims with prejudice.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentAbuse of Discretion StandardEmployee Benefit PlanPlan AdministratorMedical EvaluationWork-Hardening ProgramDenial of BenefitsJudicial Review
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2015

Nance v. Crockett County

Jerry A. Nance sued Crockett County, Tennessee, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging unpaid overtime and compensatory time. Both Nance and the County filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The court denied the County's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding willfulness of the alleged FLSA violations and Nance's eligibility for the 480-hour compensatory time limit due to his emergency response duties. The court also denied Nance's motion for summary judgment on overtime liability and liquidated damages, citing factual disputes over the actual overtime hours worked and the accuracy of his records. Consequently, both parties' motions for partial summary judgment were denied, and the case will proceed to trial.

FLSAOvertimeCompensatory TimeSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWillfulnessEmergency ServicesPublic EmploymentWage and HourEmployment Law
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. Paul Mercury Insurance v. Lexington Insurance

This case involves a declaratory judgment action between four insurance companies: St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company and Centennial Insurance Company (Applicants), and Lexington Insurance Company and Landmark Insurance Company (Defendants). The dispute centers on the priority of coverage and obligations for a $4.8 million settlement in an underlying personal injury case, the 'Foret Case'. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, ruling that waiver and estoppel claims by the defendants were not applicable between insurers. It determined that both primary policies (Landmark and Centennial) must be exhausted first, with defense costs prorated. For the excess policies (Lexington and St. Paul), liability was also to be prorated. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment in favor of St. Paul and Centennial on the negligence claims brought by Landmark and Lexington.

Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentOther Insurance ClausesExcess InsurancePro Rata InsuranceEscape ClausesWaiver and EstoppelEquitable SubrogationProration of Liability
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1994

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Kenneth Yesmont & Associates, Inc.

The State Insurance Fund (plaintiff) initiated a lawsuit to recover $18,135.35 in workers' compensation premiums from Kenneth Yesmont & Associates (defendant), which included liabilities for subcontractors lacking coverage. Initially, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and referred the payroll classification issue to the Superintendent of Insurance for review. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that the dispute primarily concerned coverage, a matter within the court's jurisdiction, rather than merely classification. Finding no factual dispute regarding the subcontractors' coverage or the plaintiff's audit calculations, the appellate court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for $16,369.75.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPayroll ClassificationAdministrative ReviewNew York LawState Insurance FundEmployer Responsibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Virga v. Medi-Tech International Corp.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury complaint based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity. The same order had also granted the plaintiffs' summary judgment, striking that affirmative defense. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, finding no basis to disregard evidence that the injured plaintiff's employer and the property owner where the injury occurred were distinct legal entities. This distinction meant the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law did not apply. Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly struck the affirmative defense.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDistinct Legal EntitiesEmployer LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityAffirmative DefenseNew York LawJudgment Affirmation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearl v. Sam Greco Construction Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Monahan & Loughlin, Inc. (M & L), suffered serious injuries after sliding off a roof at a construction site while attempting to access safety equipment. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Sam Greco Construction, Inc., and other entities, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. However, on appeal, the court determined that the safety equipment provided was improperly stored and not adequately placed, constituting a statutory violation that proximately caused the plaintiff's fall. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff's actions could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries, nor did the recalcitrant worker doctrine apply. The judgment was modified, denying the defendants' motion and granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leaving only the determination of damages.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative NegligenceRecalcitrant Worker DoctrineRoofingFall from Height
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 17,304 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