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. CA 12-00454
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2012

DONALD BRAASCH CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. STATE INSURANCE FUND

Plaintiffs Donald Braasch Construction, Inc. (DBC) and CNA Insurance Company sought a declaration that defendant State Insurance Fund was conditionally obligated to indemnify them in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. The lawsuit stemmed from an accident in March 1994, and the personal injury plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit in April 1995. DBC failed to notify the defendant insurer until May 1997, prompting the defendant to disclaim coverage due to untimely notice. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, seeking reimbursement for half of the settlement amount and defense costs in the underlying lawsuit. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding existing questions of fact regarding the reasonableness of the delay. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that there remained triable issues of fact concerning whether DBC's belief in noncoverage for the accident and resultant litigation was reasonable.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentReasonable excuseNoncoverageAppellate DivisionPersonal injuryIndemnificationDefense costs
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2008

AIU Insurance v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The case involves a dispute between two insurers regarding their respective coverage obligations for a mutual insured in an underlying action following a fatal construction site accident. Plaintiff, who insured both the site owner and the subcontractor, sought reimbursement from defendant, who also insured the employer under a workers’ compensation policy, for half of a settlement paid in the underlying action. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to plaintiff, obligating defendant to reimburse plaintiff. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, vacating the judgment and granting summary judgment to defendant. The appellate court ruled that the antisubrogation rule would have compelled the dismissal of any third-party action, thereby precluding plaintiff from obtaining reimbursement from a coinsurer.

Insurance CoverageSubrogationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFatal AccidentCoinsuranceAppellate ReversalUnderlying ActionThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. 91 Civ. 2519
Regular Panel Decision

Freer v. Mayer

Shareholder David Freer filed a derivative action against E. Hale Mayer and Progressive Bank, Inc., alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Freer claimed that proxy statements omitted material facts regarding a retirement agreement between Mayer and the bank, particularly concerning its business purpose. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claims, holding that directors were not obligated to disclose underlying motivations, provided objective material facts were disclosed. Subsequently, the court dismissed the remaining state law claims, including breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the federal claims were resolved.

Securities Exchange ActProxy StatementShareholder Derivative SuitSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyCorporate WasteSupplemental JurisdictionMaterial OmissionBusiness Judgment RuleRule 14a-9
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lumbermens Mutual Insurance v. Lumber Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning a dispute between a workers’ compensation carrier (plaintiff-respondent) and a general liability carrier (defendant-appellant) over the apportionment of settlement costs from an underlying personal injury action. The underlying action stemmed from an injury to an employee of their mutual insured, A & T Tool Co., Inc. The general liability carrier argued untimely notice of the claim and the settlement. The Supreme Court denied the general liability carrier's motion for summary judgment and granted the workers' compensation carrier's cross-motion. On appeal, the court modified the Supreme Court's order, affirming the denial of the general liability carrier's motion but denying the workers' compensation carrier's cross-motion, ruling that issues of fact regarding the reasonableness of notice delay and the settlement amount remain.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceGeneral Liability InsuranceSummary Judgment MotionTimely NoticeIndemnification ClaimContributionSettlement AgreementAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactInsurance Dispute
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2004

Chelsea Associates, LLC v. Laquila-Pinnacle

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance company's duty to defend and indemnify plaintiffs, a general contractor and related entities, in an underlying personal injury action. The injured worker, an employee of a subcontractor, sued the general contractor group after tripping at the job site entrance. The initial court denied summary judgment to the general contractor group, citing questions of fact regarding their negligence and whether the worker's injury arose out of the work. The appellate court reversed this decision, affirming that the general contractor group was an additional insured under the subcontractor's policy. The court found that the injury, occurring en route to work, arose out of the work as a matter of law, and that the general contractor's negligence was immaterial to the additional insured endorsement. Consequently, the insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs and pay the settlement amount of the underlying action.

Insurance CoverageAdditional Insured EndorsementDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPersonal InjuryGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor AgreementWorkers' InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2008

Auchampaugh v. Syracuse University

This appeal concerns General Electric International, Inc.'s (GE) motion for summary judgment on a contractual indemnification claim against International Chimney Corporation, the employer of an injured worker. The underlying personal injury action, based on Labor Law violations, was previously dismissed entirely. The core issue was whether International Chimney had entered into a written agreement to indemnify GE, a requirement under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. GE presented an unsigned purchase order and standard terms, including an indemnification clause, but International Chimney raised questions of fact regarding the agreement's formation and acceptance, citing a project manager's affidavit, a GE representative's testimony, and non-compliance with document requirements. The Supreme Court denied GE's motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute of material fact, and the appellate court affirmed this decision.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Written ContractQuestions of FactEmployer LiabilityLabor LawAppellate ReviewPurchase Order
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris Park Contracting Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance

This case concerns an appeal regarding an insurer's obligation to defend and indemnify an insured in an underlying personal injury action. The central issue revolved around the timeliness of the notice provided by the insured, Morris Park Contracting Corp., to its excess liability carrier, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. The court reiterated that contractual notice requirements are conditions precedent to coverage and must be met within a reasonable time, which is heavily dependent on factual circumstances. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of summary judgment, finding that triable questions of fact existed concerning the reasonableness of Morris Park's delay in notifying its excess insurer. Specifically, the court noted that the mere ad damnum clause in the underlying complaint was insufficient to trigger notice without accompanying evidence of serious injuries, and Morris Park's ongoing investigation raised issues of good faith belief of non-liability.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentNotice RequirementsExcess LiabilityTimeliness of NoticeSummary JudgmentConditions PrecedentReasonable BeliefAd Damnum ClausePersonal Injury Action
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. James Mechanical, Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance

St. James Mechanical, Inc., an insured party, initiated an action against its insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, and an affiliated carrier, seeking a judgment declaring their obligation to defend and indemnify St. James in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. This underlying action stemmed from an accident involving a worker hired by St. James for renovations at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers. Royal disclaimed coverage, citing St. James's two-year delay in providing notice of the accident, contending it failed to meet the 'as soon as practicable' clause in the commercial general liability policy. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the insurance carriers' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing St. James's complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that St. James successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether its delay in notice was reasonably based on a good faith belief in nonliability, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentPersonal injuryDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyGood faith belief in nonliabilityCondition precedentAppellate review
References
15
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 3,394 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