Dobransky, E. v. EQT Production

273 A.3d 1133 | Superior Court of Pennsylvania | 2022

remandedCited 0 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

The court vacated summary judgment for defendants and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether they qualified as statutory employers under Pennsylvania's Workers' Compensation Act.

We vacate the trial court's order and remand.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2022

Related Cases

Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.

1999enforced

A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.

Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.

1998modified

A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.

Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers

2009enforced

A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.

Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.

2000remanded

Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.

Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi

1992enforced

A municipality owes no duty to a subcontractor to ensure a general contractor provides valid payment bonds, and a subcontractor cannot recover from the municipality under quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or negligence theories when the general contractor abandons the project.

Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London

2010enforced

A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.