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

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 1991

Gold v. Local Union No. 888

Leonard Gold, an employee for 29 years, was terminated by John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company following accusations of theft from a policyholder. Gold denied the allegations, attributing them to the policyholder's senility. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Local Union No. 888, UFCW-AFL-CIO, represented Gold through the grievance process but ultimately withdrew their intent to arbitrate after an allegedly inadequate investigation by union official Andre Henault. Gold filed an action alleging breach of collective bargaining agreement by the Company and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union. The court denied John Hancock's motion for summary judgment, finding sufficient facts for a jury to infer the union handled Gold's grievance arbitrarily. Additionally, the court granted the union's motion to dismiss John Hancock's cross-claim, which was filed after the union settled with Gold, ruling it was barred.

duty of fair representationsummary judgmentgrievance processarbitrationcollective bargaining agreementwrongful terminationlabor lawunion settlementcross-claimfederal civil procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance

This case involves a dispute between two insurance companies, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (excess insurer) and Commercial Union Insurance Company (primary insurer), concerning liability for an injury claim. Michael Jutt, an employee of Minuteman Press International, Inc., was injured while on a Minuteman-owned boat. Commercial Union, the primary insurer, denied coverage and refused to defend Minuteman, leading Hartford, the excess insurer, to provide defense and settle Jutt's claim for $135,000. Hartford subsequently sued Commercial Union for breach of fiduciary duty. The District Court affirmed Hartford's standing to sue, recognizing a direct fiduciary duty owed by a primary insurer to an excess insurer, and found that the "paid employees" exclusion in Commercial Union's policy was ambiguous. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Hartford, ordering Commercial Union to pay $135,000 plus interest.

Insurance LawExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceFiduciary DutyEquitable SubrogationPolicy ExclusionAmbiguous Contract TermDeclaratory Judgment ActionStanding to SueMarine Insurance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance v. Puget Plastics Corp.

National Union filed a declaratory judgment action against its insureds, Arctic Slope and Puget, seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify for a judgment stemming from a state case brought by Microtherm. The underlying state case resulted in a significant judgment against Puget for defects in plastic water chambers it molded for Microtherm, and Microtherm subsequently became an assignee of Puget's rights under the National Union policy. The court addressed several issues, including whether National Union breached its duty to defend/indemnify, the nature of the settlement, and whether the damages arose from an 'occurrence' under the policy. The court found that while Puget did not intend injury, it was 'highly probable' that its deliberate use of substandard molding practices would cause harm, thus ruling it was not an 'occurrence' under the policy. Furthermore, the court determined that the damages from the underlying case comprised both covered and uncovered losses, and the insureds (now Microtherm as assignee) failed to provide a reasonable basis to allocate these damages. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of National Union, denying coverage and the counterclaims.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentDuty to IndemnifyDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionsProperty DamageOccurrence DefinitionTexas LawBreach of ContractSettlement Agreement
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Dominguez

This workers' compensation case addresses an allegation by Justo L. Dominguez, Jr. that National Union Fire Insurance Company, his compensation carrier, breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Dominguez initially settled a workers' compensation claim with National Union for $28,000, then filed a separate suit for breach of good faith. A jury awarded Dominguez $322,988.36, which the court of appeals partially affirmed and partially reversed. Citing Lyons v. Millers Casualty Insurance Company, the Texas Supreme Court held there was no evidence that National Union breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, reversing the court of appeals' judgment and rendering judgment that Dominguez take nothing.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceGood Faith and Fair DealingBreach of DutyInsurance ClaimsAppellate ReviewNo Evidence StandardReversal of JudgmentCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesMental Anguish
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carter v. Transp. Workers Union of Am. Local 556

Plaintiff Charlene Carter, a former flight attendant, sued Southwest Airlines and her union, Local 556, alleging wrongful termination and retaliation. She claims Southwest terminated her for RLA-protected speech and religious discrimination under Title VII after she posted pro-life content and criticized union leadership on Facebook. Carter also alleges Local 556 retaliated against her and breached its duty of fair representation by complaining to Southwest about her posts. The Court denied Southwest's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding her claims were not minor disputes under the RLA. However, the Court dismissed Carter's RLA claims against Southwest for failing to establish anti-union animus and constitutional retaliation claims against both defendants because they are private entities. The Title VII religious discrimination claim against Southwest was allowed to proceed, and the breach of duty of fair representation claim against Local 556 was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend. The RLA-based retaliation claim against Local 556 was also allowed to proceed.

Railway Labor ActTitle VII DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationWrongful TerminationRetaliation ClaimDuty of Fair RepresentationSocial Media PolicyUnion ActivitiesFreedom of SpeechPrivate Employer
References
76
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06377
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2014

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, granting National Union Fire Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment against JRP Contracting, Inc. The court declared that National Union had no duty to defend or indemnify JRP in an underlying personal injury action. National Union successfully argued that the plaintiff's alleged injuries (ligament and meniscal tears) were not "grave injuries" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Additionally, National Union's policy contained an exclusion for "liability assumed under a contract," further absolving it from the contractual indemnification claim. JRP's claim of prejudice due to National Union's withdrawal from defense was also rejected, as National Union had expressly reserved its rights.

Summary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyInsurance Policy ExclusionContractual IndemnificationPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franklin v. CROSBY TYPE. CO. & INT'L TYPO. UNION

Plaintiff Morris W. Franklin, a Black individual, sued his former employer, Crosby Typesetting Company, Inc., and his union, International Typographical Union, Local 198, alleging racial discrimination. Franklin claimed he was denied experience credit, unlawfully discharged, and that the union failed to represent him due to his race. The employer asserted Franklin was discharged for cause due to disruptive behavior, specifically slamming type, after repeated warnings. The union contended it couldn't help due to Franklin's untimely grievance. The Court found the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination, concluding his discharge was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and that the union did not discriminate or breach its duty of fair representation. Recovery was denied to the plaintiff.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Union Duty of Fair RepresentationWrongful TerminationPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofStatute of LimitationsUntimely Grievance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 1995

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. State Insurance Fund

Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union) initiated a declaratory judgment action against The State Insurance Fund (SIF) to recover defense and settlement costs. These costs were expended on behalf of Regional Scaffolding and Hoisting Co., Inc., a mutually insured party in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court initially denied National Union's motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of SIF. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the antisubrogation rule did not apply in this context. Consequently, it determined that National Union and SIF were co-insurers for Regional Scaffolding's common-law liability. The court granted National Union's motion for summary judgment in part, declaring SIF's duty to reimburse National Union for one-half of the reasonable settlement and defense costs, and remanded for a trial to ascertain these amounts.

Antisubrogation RuleDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeCo-Insurer LiabilityDefense Costs ReimbursementSettlement CostsEmployer's LiabilityComprehensive General LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local 459, International Union of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board sought an injunction against Local 459, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. The petitioner alleged that the Union's picketing constituted unfair labor practices, specifically a secondary boycott, under Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act. The dispute arose from the Union's picketing of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's premises, where Honeywell, the primary employer, had employees maintaining computers. Despite Metropolitan establishing reserved gates for neutral employers, the Union continued picketing, preventing deliveries by other companies like Mallon and Jackson. Applying the criteria from General Electric and Carrier Corporation, the Court found reasonable cause to believe a secondary boycott was occurring as the reserved gates were used only by neutral employees whose duties were unrelated to Honeywell's normal operations. Consequently, the Court granted the injunction, restraining the Union from picketing the reserved loading platforms.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottInjunctionNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeCommon Situs PicketingReserved Gate DoctrineLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesNLRB
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,979 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