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

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Johnson & Higgins

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Johnson & Higgins (J&H) over a mandatory pre-65 retirement policy that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court previously found J&H liable and issued an injunction. J&H then sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for monetary and injunctive relief based on waivers signed by thirteen retired employee-directors, who had received $1,000 in exchange for waiving ADEA rights. The retired directors later repudiated these waivers, citing conflict of interest, economic duress, and undue influence. The EEOC opposed the waivers, arguing inadequate consideration, lack of voluntariness, and that J&H negotiated them without EEOC participation after a finding of liability. The District Court denied J&H's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration and the voluntariness of the waivers. The court also held that waivers entered into after a finding of liability and without EEOC participation are invalid as a matter of law.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEAWaiversSummary JudgmentKnowing and VoluntaryConsiderationOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActOWBPARepudiation of WaiversEEOC Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1999

Forbes v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which denied National Restoration Contractors’ (NRC) motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by the New York City School Construction Authority (NYCSCA). The central issue revolved around the applicability of a waiver of subrogation endorsement within a commercial general liability insurance policy, procured by NYCSCA and covering subcontractors like NRC, issued by AIU Insurance Company. The policy excluded bodily injury to employees covered by workers’ compensation, which NRC separately maintained. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, concluding that the waiver of subrogation endorsement did not bar the third-party complaint. The court reasoned that the endorsement’s scope was limited to claims covered under the policy, and since NRC’s employee injuries were not covered by the AIU policy, the waiver was inapplicable.

Summary JudgmentWaiver of SubrogationThird-Party ComplaintInsurance PolicyCommercial General LiabilityWorkers' CompensationAnti-Subrogation RuleContractual IndemnityAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Co., LLC

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, argues against the permissibility of a class action concerning rent overcharges under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The core contention is that the treble damages stipulated in RSL § 26-516 (a) constitute a mandatory "penalty" as defined by CPLR 901 (b), which explicitly forbids class actions for statutory penalties unless specific authorization exists. The dissent asserts that any waiver of these treble damages by a class representative is nullified by Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.13, as such a waiver would undermine the legislative intent to deter excessive rents and contravene public policy. Furthermore, the opinion posits that such a waiver compromises the adequacy of the class representative, potentially disadvantaging class members who might possess significant claims for treble damages.

Class ActionPenaltyTreble DamagesRent Stabilization LawCPLR 901 (b)Waiver of RightsAdequacy of Class RepresentativePublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationRent Overcharge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S.S.D.W. Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co.

The plaintiff, owner of Carnegie Towers, contracted with the defendant waterproofing contractor for corrective work. A fire caused extensive damage to the building, both to the contracted work areas and other parts. The plaintiff's insurer, as subrogee, sued the defendant for negligence to recover its loss. The core legal issue is the interpretation of a subrogation waiver clause in their AIA contract, specifically whether it bars claims for damage to parts of the building not included in "the Work." The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the waiver clause only applies to damages within "the Work" and therefore, the subrogation claim for damages outside "the Work" is not barred. The dissent argued that this interpretation undermines the purpose of the waiver clause and invites further litigation.

SubrogationInsurance Waiver ClauseConstruction ContractProperty DamageNegligenceAIA ContractFire DamageAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationInsurable Interest
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. Richards

In this case, the court addressed a stipulated issue between a Wife and Husband regarding the equitable distribution of the Husband's pension and retirement plans. The central question was whether a prenuptial agreement, signed on December 18, 1989, three days before their marriage, effectively waived the Wife's rights to these assets. The agreement contained specific language for the Wife's waiver of pension rights and consent to beneficiary designations. However, the Wife did not execute further ERISA waiver documents during the marriage, and a request for such waivers came only after the divorce action commenced. Citing Federal law (ERISA) and relevant precedents, the court concluded that a prenuptial agreement signed before marriage cannot waive ERISA spousal rights. Furthermore, the court found it inequitable to enforce the contractual provision for additional documentation when the request was made for the first time during the divorce proceedings. Consequently, the court held that the prenuptial agreement does not bar the Wife's equitable claim to the disputed property.

Prenuptial Agreement ValidityERISA Spousal WaiverEquitable DistributionRetirement BenefitsPension PlansQualified Preretirement Survivor AnnuityMarital PropertySpousal RightsAntenuptial AgreementContractual Enforcement
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbitration Between Halcot Navigation Limited Partnership and Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group

Halcot Navigation Limited Partnership (Halcot) sought to vacate a partial arbitration award from August 4, 2006, which allowed Anthony Radcliffe Steamship Company Limited (a non-signatory) to assert claims against Halcot in arbitration. Halcot argued that the arbitrability of the claim should be decided by the court, not the arbitrators. Respondents (Anthony Radcliffe and Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group B.V.) cross-moved to confirm the award, contending Halcot waived its right to object by submitting the issue to arbitration. The court found that Halcot waived its right to independent review by actively participating and briefing the arbitrability issue before the arbitration panel. Even if there was no waiver, the court independently concluded that Anthony Radcliffe could compel arbitration based on equitable estoppel, as the issues were intertwined with the Time Charter agreement between Halcot and Stolt-Nielsen. Therefore, the court DENIED Halcot’s petition to vacate and GRANTED respondents’ motion to confirm the Arbitration Award.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardNew York ConventionFederal Arbitration ActArbitrabilityWaiver of RightsEquitable EstoppelNon-Signatory ArbitrationTime Charter Agreement
References
22
Case No. ADJ3687516
Regular
Jan 26, 2012

RAMONA ANAYA, JUAN JOSE GONZALEZ, JESUS CERVANTES, JULIE ANN CABEZA, WALTER CRABTREE vs. PORT HUENEME UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, J. M. SMUCKERS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC., GHL ENTERPRISES, CIGA, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., PAULA INSURANCE COMPANY, MARY HEALTH OF THE SICK, REDISED INSURANCE, CRAWFY AND COMPANY, M.R. AUTOMOTIVE, CIGA, Administrative inTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, HIH AMERICA COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Attorney M. Francesca Hannan's request for a waiver of fees or a payment plan for reporter's transcripts. Hannan sought the transcripts to support allegations of bias by a Workers' Compensation Judge and claimed financial hardship and limited time for preparation. The Board found no legal basis for the fee waiver or payment plan under applicable rules and statutes, though it affirmed Hannan's right to obtain the transcripts upon payment.

WCABPetitionReporter's TranscriptFee WaiverPayment PlanGovernment Code 68632Administrative Director Rule 9990Appeals Board Rule 10740AnayaLien Trial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. ADJ7469391
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

DANIEL DIAZ NEGRON vs. CLEAR WATER HANDWASH dba MARINA CLASSIC CAR WASH, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Best of California Business Promotions, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was based on an assumed dismissal of their lien that had not actually occurred. The lien claimant failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial and did not provide good cause for their absence. Furthermore, the Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $1,000 against the lien claimant and its representatives for filing a frivolous petition and wasting judicial resources by arguing an issue not supported by the record. The Board is also removing the case on its own motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienNon-Appearance at TrialLien Activation FeeUnconstitutional
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,012 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