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

American Home Assurance Co. v. McDonald

This declaratory judgment action involves American Home Assurance Company seeking to limit its liability under professional liability policies issued to social workers Rory M. McDonald and Helene Ina Anisfeld, who are defendants in an underlying malpractice action brought by Randy Kamhi. Kamhi alleges sexual misconduct and professional negligence against McDonald, and vicarious liability and direct negligence against Anisfeld as McDonald's partner. American Home sought summary judgment to limit indemnification to $25,000 for sexual misconduct claims and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment in part, affirming the $25,000 limit for McDonald's sexual misconduct and for punitive damages for both McDonald and Anisfeld. However, the court denied the request to terminate American Home's duty to defend McDonald upon exhausting the $25,000 limit and granted Kamhi's cross-motion to stay further summary judgment applications until discovery in the underlying action is complete. Crucially, the court found that extending the sexual misconduct coverage limit to non-sexual malpractice claims violates New York public policy.

Professional Liability InsuranceSexual MisconductInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic Policy ArgumentTherapist MalpracticeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyUnconscionability Claim
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonardi v. Board of Fire Commissioners

Plaintiff Michael Leonardi brought an action against the Mastic Beach Fire Department and its Board of Fire Commissioners, alleging his termination as a volunteer fireman without a pre-termination hearing violated his constitutional rights. Leonardi, a member since 1963, was terminated in June 1983, just shy of twenty years of service, due to alleged incapacitation and attendance issues. He had previously initiated an Article 78 state court proceeding, which was denied without prejudice. The District Court found that Leonardi, as an exempt volunteer fireman, possessed a constitutionally protected property interest under New York Civil Service Law, and his termination without a prior hearing constituted a deprivation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Leonardi on the issue of liability for his federal claims. However, the court limited the defendants' liability for damages to the period between Leonardi's termination on June 28, 1983, and the date of the state court's order on March 2, 1984, as the state court proceeding provided a constitutionally adequate hearing, thereby ending the period of constitutional deprivation.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationVolunteer FiremanProperty InterestProcedural Due ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingDamages LimitationState Law Protections
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2002

Termine v. Continental Baking Co.

Salvatore Termine, a plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted summary judgment to the defendant, Continental Baking Company (CBC), dismissing his personal injury complaint. Termine was injured in October 1998 while employed by Interstate Brands Corporation (IBC). CBC, the record owner of the property, had merged with its parent IBC in 1995, and its authority to do business in New York terminated shortly thereafter. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that Termine's action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 because his employer, IBC, was the actual owner of the property at the time of the accident, not CBC. The court also rejected Termine's argument regarding CBC's failure to file a deed, stating Real Property Law § 291 protects purchasers, not personal injury claimants.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityMerger of CorporationsReal Property OwnershipSummary JudgmentPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityDelaware Corporation LawNew York Business LawDeed Filing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fuentes v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision dated November 15, 2006. The Board had transferred liability for a claimant's 1998 work-related back injury to the Special Fund, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Special Fund argued that certain payments made to the claimant in late 2005, between November 30 and December 17, were advance payments of compensation, which would preclude the transfer of liability. However, the Board found that these payments were charged to the claimant's accumulated sick leave and did not constitute advance payments of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that the sick leave payments did not prevent the transfer of liability to the Special Fund because they were not made voluntarily in recognition of employer liability, and thus, the criteria for transferring liability to the Special Fund were met.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law Section 25-aAdvance Payments of CompensationSick Leave PlanLiability TransferStale ClaimApplication to Reopen ClaimWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryTreating Physician Report
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zimmerman v. Quality Inn

The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in September 1993 and received workers' compensation benefits from February 1994 until July 9, 1999. These benefits were terminated due to a finding of fraud pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. Subsequently, in April 2004, the Workers’ Compensation Board discharged the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier from liability, transferring it to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1). The claimant appealed this decision, contending that it was premature and that she might be entitled to future wage replacement benefits despite the fraud finding, referencing *Matter of Losurdo v Asbestos Free*. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the claimant failed to timely perfect her appeal from the initial fraud finding and that *Matter of Losurdo* did not reinstate her entitlement to future benefits.

Workers' CompensationFraudBenefit TerminationCarrier LiabilitySpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMatter of Losurdo v Asbestos Free
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Liability Ins. v. Mountain Valley Indemnity Co.

This diversity action involves an insurance dispute between plaintiffs United States Liability Insurance Co. (U.S. Liability) and Mobile Air Transport, Inc., and defendant Mountain Valley Indemnity Co. The conflict arose from a fatal truck accident involving a Mobile Air employee driving a truck leased from Leroy Holding Company, Inc. After an underlying personal injury action settled, U.S. Liability and Mountain Valley each paid $225,000 towards the remaining $450,000 portion of the settlement. The core disagreement is whether the Truck Lease Agreement, which designates Mobile Air's insurance as primary, or the specific 'other insurance' clauses within U.S. Liability's and Mountain Valley's respective policies, which would make Mountain Valley's coverage primary, should govern. Applying New York law, the court ruled that the insurance policy provisions take precedence over the lease agreement. Consequently, U.S. Liability's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Mountain Valley's cross-motion was denied, holding Mountain Valley liable for the entire $450,000 in dispute.

Insurance DisputePrimary vs Excess CoverageTruck Lease AgreementInsurance Policy InterpretationSummary JudgmentNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionIndemnificationSubrogationAutomobile Accident
References
5
Case No. LAO 855766
Regular
Jul 16, 2007

JUAN L. FLORES vs. HEDENBERG, INC., dba IHOP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's petition to terminate temporary total disability indemnity. While the defendant's initial petition had procedural defects, including failing to adhere to filing deadlines and content requirements, the Board found that Labor Code section 4700 dictates no liability for temporary disability benefits exists beyond the date of the applicant's death. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior order and issued a new order terminating the defendant's liability for temporary total disability indemnity as of February 20, 2007, the date of the applicant's death.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Terminating LiabilityTemporary Total Disability IndemnityLabor Code Section 4700Applicant's DeathPermanent and StationaryPetition to Terminate LiabilityCalifornia Code of RegulationsRule 10462
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01287 [214 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Mora v. 1-10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P.

John Mora, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife, sued 1-10 Bush Terminal Owner, L.P. after he fell from a ladder during demolition work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendant appealed this decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240 (1)Proximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work SitesSafety Devices
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 5,794 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