You are here: / / AMENDMENT TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WHICH IMPOSED LIABILITY UPON...

AMENDMENT TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WHICH IMPOSED LIABILITY UPON INSURERS FOR REOPENED CASES PREVIOUSLY COVERED BY THE SPECIAL FUND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, reversing Supreme Court, determined an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Law which made insurers liable for reopened cases no longer covered by the special fund (which has been eliminated) was unconstitutional. Although the insurers can adjust their premiums to cover future reopened cases no longer covered by the fund, the insurers can not be compensated for reopened cases from prior to October 1, 2013, when premiums were lower because any reopened cases were the sole responsibility of the fund. The amendment therefore violated the Contract and Takings Clauses:

Plaintiffs … established that the amendment, as applied retroactively, violates the Contract Clause of the US Constitution because it retroactively impairs an existing contractual obligation to provide insurance coverage “[w]here *** the insurer does not have the right to terminate the policy or change the premium rate” … . Defendants failed to show that the impairment is “reasonable and necessary to serve” “a significant and legitimate public purpose *** such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem” … . Indeed, the legislation's stated purpose of preventing a windfall to insurance carriers was based upon the erroneous premise that premiums already cover this new liability.

Retroactive application would also constitute a regulatory taking in violation of the Takings Clause … . American Economy Ins. Co. v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 02924, 1st Dept 4-14-16


You might also like
THE SORA RISK-LEVEL MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RE-OPENED THE HEARING TO AMEND ITS ORIGINAL RISK-LEVEL DETERMINATION; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET; THE “INHERENT AUTHORITY” TO RE-OPEN APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULING WAS BASED ON A MISTAKE; THE PEOPLE WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (FIRST DEPT).
THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT MADE AN INFORMED DECISION TO WAIVE A VIABLE INSANITY DEFENSE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT VACATED THE PLEA AND DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT; DEFENDANT WAS RETURNED TO AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY UNDER A CIVIL GUARDIANSHIP ORDER (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT VIDEO-HOSTING SERVICE, VIMEO, DID NOT BREACH ITS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF BY REMOVING FIVE VIDEOS POSTED BY PLAINTIFF CLAIMING CHILDHOOD VACCINATION LEADS TO AUTISM; THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT AUTHORIZES INTERNET PROVIDERS TO REMOVE “OBJECTIONABLE” MATERIAL (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE THE JUDGE DEVIATED FROM THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR THE CALCULATION OF TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR THE DEVIATION; THE TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS WERE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAD PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IS A COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Exclusion of Defense Counsel’s Colleague from a Wade Hearing Deprived Defendant of His Right to a Public Trial
Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Disqualified Defense Counsel Over Defendant’s Objection on Conflict of Interest Grounds—The Fact that a Co-Defendant Had Been Represented by Another Attorney from the New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) Did Not Create a Conflict for Defendant’s NYCDS Attorney—Defendant’s Attorney Did Not Have Access to Any Information Provided by the Co-Defendant (Who Had Already Pled Out)—Client Confidences Are Not Generally Shared by Attorneys Within a Large Institution Like the NYCDS, As They Might Be Within a Private Law Firm
OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CO-WORKERS’ EGREGIOUS AND LEWD BEHAVIOR, TOGETHER WITH THE EMPLOYER’S... CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST EMPLOYER ALLEGING EMPLOYEES WERE ROUTINELY UNDERPAID...