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. 09 Civ. 4792, 10 Civ. 1790
Regular Panel Decision

Dumitru v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.

Plaintiff Bogdan Dumitru, a Romanian citizen, sued Princess Cruise Lines (PCL) for injuries sustained while employed on one of PCL’s vessels, alleging negligence under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and unpaid wages under the Seaman’s Wage Act. PCL moved to compel arbitration based on an employment contract. The court found that an arbitration agreement existed under the Convention, but declared the Bermuda choice-of-law and choice-of-venue provisions unenforceable due to U.S. public policy concerning statutory rights and convenient forum. The court severed the unenforceable provisions and, with PCL's stipulation for alternative venues (New York, Miami, or Los Angeles), compelled arbitration for all of Dumitru's claims and denied Dumitru's motion to remand.

Jones ActSeaman's Wage ActFederal Arbitration ActConvention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral AwardsMaritime LawArbitration Agreement EnforcementChoice-of-LawChoice-of-VenueContract SeverabilityPublic Policy Exception
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2008

H & M Hennes & Mauritz LP v. Skanska USA Building, Inc.

Plaintiff H & M Hennes & Mauritz LP (H&M) commenced a subrogation action against defendants Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska) and Seasons Contracting Corp. (Seasons) for property damage allegedly caused by construction work performed under a contract with H&M’s landlord. Skanska moved for summary judgment, arguing that H&M’s lease agreement included a waiver of subrogation provision that precluded the claims. H&M contended the provision was ambiguous as to its scope and unenforceable due to lack of mutuality under New York law. The Court granted Skanska’s motion, finding that the waiver provision clearly applied to independent contractors like Skanska and was enforceable, thereby dismissing all claims against Skanska.

SubrogationWaiver of SubrogationSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationLease AgreementIndependent ContractorsLandlord-Tenant RelationshipNew York LawProperty DamageInsurance Policy
References
35
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03533 [239 AD3d 481]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2025

MevRam Servs., LLC v. Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding a 'no-poaching' provision within staffing agreements between MevRam Services, LLC and Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC, along with its affiliates. MevRam Services, LLC furnished employees to the Arlo hotels, and the agreement prohibited defendants from hiring these employees for a period. Defendants moved to dismiss MevRam's claims, arguing the provision violated the New York City Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (DBSWPA) and constituted unenforceable penalties. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the no-poaching provision did not violate the DBSWPA as employees were not displaced, and defendants failed to demonstrate any overriding public policy concerns or that the fees were penalties.

No-Poaching ClauseStaffing AgreementBreach of ContractLiquidated DamagesMotion to DismissDisplaced Building Service Workers Protection ActAppellate DivisionContract LawEmployment LawHotel Industry
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. ADJ8136280
Regular
Jan 17, 2014

MIRIAM PORTILLO vs. CITIZENS OF HUMANITY, CHARTIS

This case involves a lien claimant whose lien was dismissed for failing to pay a lien activation fee. However, a federal court had issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of these fee provisions prior to the lien being dismissed. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board ruled that the lien activation fee provisions were unenforceable due to the injunction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien Activation FeeLabor Code section 4903.06Preliminary InjunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerWCJDismissed LienRescinded OrderFurther Proceedings
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1977

McCallin v. Walsh

The dissenting opinion, penned by Murphy, P. J., challenges specific provisions of Local Law No. 5, particularly those concerning smoke venting and stairway pressurization, deeming them unconstitutional and unenforceable due to economic unfeasibility and lack of clear performance standards. The dissent clarifies that Local Law No. 5 does not mandate sprinklerization, interpreting the word "exempt" in its plain meaning. While agreeing with the majority on the Fire Commissioner's authority to create fire warden positions and denying class action status in the McCallin suit, the opinion criticizes Local Law No. 5 as hastily conceived and carelessly formulated, advocating for redrafted provisions to ensure effective fire safety programs.

Local Law No. 5Fire Safety RegulationsBuilding Code ChallengesUnconstitutional ProvisionsStairway PressurizationSmoke VentingStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentClass Action LitigationFire Warden Appointment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP

Plaintiff Stephanie Sutherland sued her former employer, Ernst & Young LLP (E & Y), alleging violations of the FLSA and New York labor laws for unpaid overtime. E & Y moved to dismiss or stay proceedings and compel individual arbitration, citing an arbitration agreement with a class waiver. The court denied E & Y's motion, finding the class waiver provision unenforceable. The court reasoned that enforcing the waiver would make it prohibitively expensive for Sutherland to pursue her claims individually, effectively granting E & Y de facto immunity from liability. Despite the unenforceability of the class waiver, the court noted it could not compel class arbitration due to the agreement's silence on the matter, following the precedent of Stolt-Nielsen.

FLSAArbitration AgreementClass Action WaiverOvertime WagesEmployment LawStatutory RightsEnforceabilityCollective ActionEconomic FeasibilityJudicial Forum
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 1994

Moor-Jankowski v. Moor-Jankowski

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing her claim for equitable distribution of his retirement funds. The parties had an antenuptial agreement stating each party would retain separate property, including increments resulting from personal efforts, and waived rights to the other's separate property. The plaintiff contended the agreement was unenforceable due to non-compliance with ERISA spousal consent provisions. The court concluded that ERISA's spousal consent provisions apply to a plan participant's current spouse, not a former spouse, and that the plaintiff had waived her interest in the pension through the antenuptial agreement. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the order, agreeing that the funds accumulated before and after the marriage constituted the defendant's separate property.

Antenuptial AgreementEquitable DistributionRetirement FundsERISASpousal ConsentSummary JudgmentMatrimonial LawAppellate ReviewSeparate PropertyWaiver of Rights
References
9
Case No. No. 84
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings

The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order, reinstating the Supreme Court's decision in a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) put-back action. The core issue was whether allegations of gross negligence could render a contractual "sole remedy provision" unenforceable, allowing for broader compensatory and punitive damages. The Court held that the public policy exception for gross negligence only applies to exculpatory or nominal damages clauses, not to contractual limitations on remedies that provide for more than nominal relief and are intended to make the injured party whole. It found the sole remedy provision (cure or repurchase of defective loans) to be neither exculpatory nor nominal. Additionally, claims for punitive damages and attorneys' fees were dismissed, as no independent tort was established for punitive damages and the contract did not clearly authorize attorneys' fees.

RMBS litigationcontractual limitationsgross negligencesole remedyexculpatory clausenominal damagesbreach of contractpublic policypunitive damagesattorneys' fees
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 1,394 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