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

Michigan Self-Insurers' Security Fund v. DPH Holdings Corp. (In Re DPH Holdings Corp.)

The Michigan Self-Insurers’ Security Fund appealed a bankruptcy court's denial to file late claims against DPH Holdings, Inc., following DPH's Chapter 11 reorganization. The Fund, which covers workers' compensation for insolvent self-insured employers, filed claims three years after the Bar Date, arguing excusable neglect due to DPH's initial commitment to continue payments. The bankruptcy court, however, found no excusable neglect, highlighting the Fund's failure to file a contingent claim by the deadline. The District Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the significant delay, the potential prejudice to the debtor, and the Fund's legally mistaken belief regarding its claim obligations.

Bankruptcy AppealLate ClaimsExcusable NeglectPioneer TestWorkers' Compensation ObligationsChapter 11 ReorganizationBar DateContingent ClaimsAbuse of Discretion ReviewJudicial Administration
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transcontinental Insurance v. State Insurance Fund

This case involves a dispute between two insurers, Transcontinental Insurance Company (plaintiff) and State Insurance Fund (defendant), regarding their contribution to the defense and settlement of an underlying personal injury action. Transcontinental, which insured the contractor Master, sought a declaration that State Insurance Fund, Master's workers' compensation insurer, should contribute as a co-insurer for expenses incurred defending and settling the action on behalf of NYPA. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, applying the antisubrogation rule. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, vacating the dismissal but affirming the application of the antisubrogation rule, declaring that State Insurance Fund is not obligated to reimburse Transcontinental for the expenses.

Insurance DisputeAntisubrogation RuleDeclaratory JudgmentCommercial General Liability PolicyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceIndemnificationCo-insurancePersonal Injury ActionAppellate ReviewContractual Obligation
References
5
Case No. ADJ7106431
Regular
Sep 04, 2014

AGUSTINA RAMOS vs. MAINSTAY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND (SISF), METRO RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding an order that denied the Self-Insurers Security Fund (SISF) leave to join other potentially liable insurance carriers. This decision allows SISF to pursue contribution claims against State Compensation Insurance Fund, Zenith, and Castle Point National Insurance for benefits paid under a compromise and release settlement. The Board found that joinder proceedings can be initiated within one year after a settlement approval, consistent with contribution provisions under Labor Code section 5500.5. The case is returned to the trial level for the joinder of these parties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSelf-Insurers Security FundSISFcompromise and releaseLabor Code Section 5500.5contributionjoindersuccessive insurersapportionment of liabilitycumulative trauma
References
3
Case No. ADJ265314 (LAO 0790236)
Regular
May 21, 2009

VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ vs. THIBIANT INTERNATIONAL, INC., FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, SELECT PERSONNEL SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCATION, LEGION INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant injured while working for a special employer, Thibiant International, insured by Fireman's Fund. The applicant was hired by a general employer, Select Personnel, whose insurer, Legion Insurance, became insolvent. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) paid benefits but argued its coverage was excluded by Fireman's Fund being "other insurance." The Appeals Board affirmed Fireman's Fund's liability as the special employer's insurer and reversed CIGA's dismissal, finding Fireman's Fund owed CIGA reimbursement for benefits paid. The Board also deemed Fireman's Fund's challenge to the reimbursement amount waived due to failure to raise it at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVictoria RodriguezThibiant InternationalInc.Fireman's Fund Insurance CompanySelect Personnel ServicesCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGALegion Insurance Companyliquidation
References
7
Case No. ADJ700106 (SAL 0075388) ADJ4293270 (SAL 0067937) ADJ3847224 (SAL 0067938) ADJ1646200 (SAL 0011386)
Regular
Sep 01, 2015

WILLIE PEARSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Chamberlain's Children Center, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, CIGA sought to be relieved of liability for applicant's medical treatment, arguing that the State of California Department of Corrections ("the State") constituted "other insurance." The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the State does not qualify as "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)(A). Unlike private self-insured employers, the State is not required to obtain workers' compensation insurance or a certificate of self-insurance, and thus does not fall within the statutory definition of an "insurer." The Board further clarified that the State Compensation Insurance Fund's role in claim adjustment services for the State does not make it "other insurance" when the State is not otherwise insured with SCIF.

CIGASupernational Insurance Companylegally uninsuredother insurancecovered claimsInsurance Code Section 1063.1State of California Department of Correctionsreimbursementstipulated awardjoint and several liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2004

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Branicki

The State Insurance Fund sued Bernard Branicki for breach of contract to recover $17,521.87 in unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. Branicki contended he was self-employed and not subject to the Workers' Compensation Law, and that the plaintiff failed to conduct requested audits. The court found a valid contract and a breach by Branicki for non-payment. However, the court ruled against the plaintiff's claim for estimated premiums due to its failure to demand access to defendant's records for an audit. Ultimately, the court calculated the actual premiums due and granted judgment to the State Insurance Fund for $348.31, plus interest and collection fees.

Breach of ContractUnpaid Insurance PremiumsInsurance Policy AuditSelf-Employment StatusContractual ObligationsDamages CalculationPolicy CancellationJudicial ReviewEstimated Premiums DisputeInsurance Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Liquidation of Midland Insurance

Policyholders New York Dock Railway (NYDR) and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal (BEDT), joined by claimants Buividas and Romacho, moved to confirm a referee's report that found coverage for their claims by the Stock Workers' Compensation Security Fund. The Superintendent of Insurance, as liquidator of Midland Insurance Company, cross-moved to disaffirm the report, arguing against Security Fund coverage based on his interpretation of relevant statutes. The court reviewed the referee's decision, finding it erroneous due to a misinterpretation of legislative history and intent regarding security fund coverage limitations, particularly concerning Chapter 801 amendments. Upholding the Superintendent's rational interpretation, the court denied the motion to confirm and granted the cross-motion to disaffirm, affirming the denial of security fund coverage.

Workers' Compensation Security FundInsurance Coverage DisputeMidland Insurance Company LiquidationFederal Employers' Liability ActJones ActLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryThird-Party IndemnificationEmployer's Liability
References
6
Case No. AHM 90917 AHM 90918
Regular
Jul 11, 2007

ANGEL SOSA vs. D.W. FOODS, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, VILLANOVA INSURANCE

This case concerns a dispute over reimbursement between an insurer, Everest, and the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), which is handling claims for a liquidated insurer, Villanova. The Board denied Everest's petition, upholding a prior award for reimbursement from Everest to CIGA. However, the Board granted CIGA's petition to amend the award to include Villanova Insurance as a party defendant.

CIGAEverest National Insurance CompanyVillanova Insuranceliquidationreconsiderationreimbursementbill review chargesjoint and several liabilitycumulative traumadenied due process
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2000

Royal Insurance Co. of America v. Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund

The claimant sought 50% reimbursement of defense costs from the State Insurance Fund (Fund) for litigation related to a bridge collapse, after the Fund ceased contributions. The Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the claimant, finding an implied contract. On appeal, the Fund argued State Finance Law § 112 (2) (a) precluded such a contract without Comptroller approval and that factual issues existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding the Fund acts as a private insurer in litigation and is estopped from denying the implied contract, also finding no material factual issues precluding summary judgment.

Reimbursement of Defense CostsImplied ContractState Insurance FundCo-insuranceSummary JudgmentEstoppelState Finance LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
6
Case No. CA 11-00156
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2011

MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND

Plaintiff, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, initiated an action against New York State Insurance Fund to recover funds related to an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. The core issue was the defendant's obligation to indemnify Jerrick Waterproofing Co., Inc. for a construction accident. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, which the defendant appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendant was indeed obligated to provide unlimited coverage to Jerrick Waterproofing, despite a policy exclusion, as a common-law right to indemnity existed. Consequently, the plaintiff's excess coverage was not triggered.

Insurance disputeWorkers' CompensationIndemnificationExcess coverageSummary judgmentAppellate reviewNew York lawEmployer liabilityPolicy exclusionCommon-law indemnity
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 15,482 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