Pabst Brews a Legal Storm

On April 15, 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that will reverberate through asbestos litigation, workers’ compensation law, and premises liability for years to come. In Estate of Carol Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Co., 2026 WI 12, the court held that a brewery owner could be found liable under Wisconsin’s Safe Place Statute for a steamfitter’s fatal mesothelioma, even though the worker was employed by an independent contractor, not by Pabst. The decision affirms a $6.9 million judgment, including punitive damages, and clarifies important principles governing the rights of workers exposed to occupational hazards on third-party premises.

Workplace Disease & Household Liability

A landmark California Supreme Court ruling in 2023 reversed earlier lower-court decisions and shielded employers from "take-home" COVID-19 liability — but the legal landscape for occupational disease exposure to household members remains complex and evolving. Here is what workers' compensation practitioners, employers, and injured workers need to know.

Gelman on Workers' Compensation Law 2026 Update Now Available

Jon Gelman's newly revised and updated treatise on Workers' Compensation Law 2026 has been published by Thomson Reuters of Eagan, MN. This marks the 40th annual supplement to the New Jersey Practice Series on Workers' Compensation Law. The treatise is the most comprehensive, research-integrated work, on Workers' Compensation law, and is fully integrated with Westlaw.

Workers' Compensation Bar Prevails

The New Jersey Appellate Division affirms the exclusivity of workers' compensation in a workplace-fall case.

Failure to Assist Not Actionable

 For a workplace injury claim to bypass the exclusive New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act, the employer's conduct must be an "intentional wrong" – meaning they knew injury or death was virtually certain, and the injury is beyond the scope of typical industrial employment. Simply entrusting an injured employee to a friend for transport to medical care generally doesn't meet this high bar.

Insurance Coverage Denied in Employee Suit

A recent case, Rice Enterprises, LLC v. RSUI Indemnity Co., highlights the complexities of insurance coverage for employers facing lawsuits from employees. The case involved a former employee who sued Rice Enterprises for negligence related to alleged sexual harassment and assault by a manager. Rice Enterprises sought coverage under its insurance policies, specifically a Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability policy from Zenith Insurance Company and a Commercial Umbrella liability policy from RSUI Indemnity Company.  

Workplace Injury: No Civil Recourse

A recent decision by the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, highlighted the application of the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity bar in a case involving a fatal parking lot accident on employer property. The court in Faisal Jameel v. HMH Hospitals Corporation affirmed the dismissal of a civil lawsuit against the employer, finding that workers' compensation covered the tragic incident and did not meet the high standard for the "intentional wrong" exception.

Employer Contribution Barred

On January 15, 2025, US District Judge Edward S. Kiel issued a significant decision in Wright v. Cezaire (Case No. 21-cv-13491), affirming the exclusivity provision of the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act. This ruling has crucial implications for employers facing potential liability in third-party lawsuits.

Marijuana Test: Walmart Wins Case - Retaliatory Firing

The Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act – referred to herein as ‘CREAMMA.’ does not expressly provide a private remedy for redressing employment discrimination against cannabis users. 

Podcast: A Federal Court Analyzes an Intentional Wrong Claim

The recent US District Court decision in Lopez v. Corozal Auto Repair Inc. delves into the critical issue of the exclusivity rule and its narrow exceptions, focusing on intentional wrong claims under NJSA 34:15-8. To expand the discussion among all workers' compensation community stakeholders, we have generated a free podcast on this topic.

Navigating the Complexities of Workers' Compensation Exclusivity in New Jersey

The recent decision in Lopez v. Corozal Auto Repair Inc., a case heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, provides valuable insights into the intricate legal landscape of workers' compensation law. Specifically, the court delved into the critical issue of the exclusivity rule and its narrow exceptions, particularly focusing on intentional wrong claims under NJSA 34:15-8.

Podcast: The Limitations of a Workers' Compensation Insurance Policy

The recent New Jersey Supreme decision in Rodriquez v. Shelborne Spring LLC et al. has defined the limits of an employer's workers' compensation insurance policy. We have generated a free podcast on this topic to expand the discussion among all workers' compensation community stakeholders.

NJ Supreme Court Limits Employer Insurance Coverage for Worker Injuries

In a recent decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified the scope of insurance coverage for employers facing lawsuits from injured workers. The case Dionicio Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring LLA addresses whether an employer's liability insurance policy covers claims of gross negligence, recklessness, and intentional misconduct brought by an employee who has already received workers' compensation benefits.

NJ Supreme Court to Review Workplace Insurance Exclusion

The NJ Supreme Court will review whether a workers’ compensation insurance company has a duty to defend an employer against personal injury claims brought by the employer’s employee under an employer's liability insurance policy.

Intentional Tort v Negligence

A New Jersey appellate court found that an employee could not proceed with an intentional tort claim against an employer because the evidence needed to meet the two-prong standard was lacking.

Not an Exception

In most instances, the sole remedy for a worker injured at work is Workers’ Compensation Act [WCA] benefits. Even if the employer fails to obtain workers’ compensation insurance, the employee remains limited to those remedies provided under the WCA.

California Supreme Court Bars Household Contact Covid Claims

Today, the California Supreme Court decided that the Workers’ Compensation Act [WCA] did not bar a derivative claim. However, using a public policy rationale, it did not extend an employer's duty of care to an employee's household contacts who contracted COVID-19.

California Supreme Court to File its Decision in a Derivative Immunity Claim Tomorrow

The California Supreme Court will file its much-anticipated decision regarding KUCIEMBA v. VICTORY WOODWORKS, Case: S274191, on Thursday, July 6, 2023, at 10:00 am (PT). The Court had accepted the request of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to answer a question of state law regarding employers' liability in COVID claims. Briefs are now available online (See below).

The Exclusivity Rule Does Not Bar Claims of a Minor

A minor may elect to file a negligence action against an employer and not be prohibited by the Exclusivity Rule that typically bars employee claims against their employers.

Dual Employment and the Proposed NLRB Joint-Employer Standard

Workers’ compensation claims may be pursued against two companies if there is found to be joint employment. While case law defines employment status, the US National Labor Relations Board has issued a proposed Rule to substantiate a dual employer status.