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. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. B167017
Significant
Nov 18, 2004

General Casualty Insurance and Regent Insurance, Joseph A. Lane, American Home Assurance Company vs. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and California Insurance Guarantee Association

The court has requested responses from the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (WCIRB) and the California Insurance Commissioner regarding the exclusion of special employees from a special employer's workers' compensation policy, specifically questioning the use and requirements of Form No. 11 for this purpose.

WCIRBForm No. 11limiting endorsementsrestricting endorsementsspecial employeesgeneral employerstemporary employeesleased employeesInsurance CommissionerCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1972

Claim of McGee v. Allstate Insurance

The claimant's husband, a District Sales Manager for Allstate Insurance Company, died in a car accident on September 30, 1970, after attending a sales meeting and continuing business discussions at bars. Although his home was in Utica, the accident occurred en route from Rome. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found the decedent was an outside worker and in the course of his employment at the time of death, awarding death benefits to the claimant. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision, ruling that social activities connected with and incidental to an employer’s business are considered part of employment and that the decedent had not deviated from his employment.

Death BenefitsCourse of EmploymentOutside WorkerSales MeetingBusiness DiscussionCar AccidentDeviation from EmploymentAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
3
Case No. ADJ6697300
Regular
Aug 31, 2015

Lorenzo Yanez vs. Universal Label Printers, Sparta Insurance Company, Employers Compensation Insurance Company

This case involves an insurance dispute over contribution liability for a workers' compensation claim. The applicant, Lorenzo Yanez, sustained an injury while employed by Universal Label Printers, with coverage from Sparta Insurance Company and Employers Compensation Insurance Company. A Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement was approved, which included an addendum purportedly allocating liability between Sparta (17%) and Employers (87%). Sparta sought to enforce this addendum for reimbursement, but the trial judge denied their petition, finding a lack of jurisdiction due to no separate petition for contribution being filed within the statutory one-year period. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding continuing jurisdiction to enforce the C&R and its addendum under Labor Code section 5803, and returned the matter to the trial judge to determine the enforceability and terms of the addendum.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ContributionLabor Code Section 5500.5Continuing JurisdictionLabor Code Section 5803Apportionment of Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. SBR 309137
Regular
Aug 28, 2007

JOSE CARMONA vs. ARROW EMPLOYMENT SERVICES dba ARROW STAFFING SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, KELLY PRODUCTIONS, INC., FARMDALE CREAMERY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is reconsidering a prior award due to CIGA's contention that the applicant's claim is not a "covered claim" because other insurance was available. The central issue is whether the special employer's (Farmdale Creamery) workers' compensation policy with SCIF constitutes "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9), which would exclude the claim from CIGA's coverage. The case is remanded for further proceedings to definitively determine the availability of this "other insurance" and its impact on CIGA's liability.

CIGALegion Insurance CompanyArrow Employment ServicesFarmdale CreameryState Compensation Insurance Fundcovered claimother insuranceInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)general employerspecial employer
References
13
Case No. ADJ1463963 (POM 0273971 ADJ3120431 (POM 0268474)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

RUBEN ORTIZ vs. LINKS-NILSON CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, DAART ENGINEERING, XL FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Ruben Ortiz seeking workers' compensation benefits. The primary issue is whether the applicant's injuries from a specific incident are compensable under workers' compensation law. The litigation involves multiple defendants, including the applicant's employer, its insurer (in liquidation), and the California Insurance Guarantee Association, alongside other entities. The core dispute centers on the causal link between the employment and the claimed injuries. The outcome will determine the extent of benefits Ortiz is entitled to and the responsibility of the named defendants.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantLinks-Nilsen CorporationCalifornia Compensation Insurance CompanyliquidationCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationDaart EngineeringXL Fire ProtectionState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Insurance v. State

Thomas Murray, an executive officer and co-owner of T & T Murray Company, Inc., sustained severe injuries while working, having previously elected to be excluded from Workers’ Compensation coverage under Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (6). Following a successful lawsuit against the general contractor, Concept Construction Corp., and subsequent indemnification from T & T, Concept's liability carrier, Continental Insurance Company, sought coverage from T & T's insurer, State Insurance Fund. The State Fund denied the claim, asserting the exclusion applied to both Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability coverage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling that the two types of coverage are inextricably linked, and the election to exclude executive officers from Workers’ Compensation coverage also eliminates Employers’ Liability coverage for injuries to those officers.

Workers' Compensation Law § 54(6)Employers' Liability CoverageExecutive Officer ExclusionCorporate OfficersStock OwnershipInsurance Policy InterpretationThird-Party IndemnificationSubrogation ClaimStatutory InterpretationNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. ADJ1888124 (SAL 0111884) ADJ3322590 (SAL 0079903)
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

MARIA NUNEZ vs. MANN PACKING COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation; STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an applicant's workers' compensation claims after Fremont Compensation Insurance Company became insolvent. CIGA argued it should be relieved of liability because the State of California, as the applicant's employer through IHSS, constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code Section 1063.1. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the State of California does not qualify as "other insurance" under the relevant statutes. This distinction is based on the State not being required to obtain workers' compensation insurance or a certificate of self-insurance like private or other public employers.

CIGAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyliquidationlegally uninsuredother insuranceInsurance Code Section 1063.1covered claimsIn-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)statutory limitationsself-insurance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2001

A.I. Transport v. New York State Insurance Fund

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied a liability insurer’s application to stay an arbitration initiated by a workers’ compensation insurer. The workers’ compensation insurer sought to recover benefits paid to a bus passenger injured in an accident, where the bus was insured by the liability insurer. The court interpreted Insurance Law § 5105 (a) to allow a workers’ compensation provider, paying benefits in lieu of first party benefits, to recover amounts paid from the insurer of a liable party, even if one of the vehicles involved is a bus. It was determined that an exception for losses arising from the use of a motor vehicle (Insurance Law § 5103 [a] [1]) did not apply, as the respondent was a workers’ compensation insurer and not an automobile insurer. Consequently, the arbitration was allowed to proceed, and the petition to stay it was dismissed and unanimously affirmed.

Arbitration DisputeInsurance Law InterpretationNo-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation SubrogationBus AccidentLiability CoverageStatutory ConstructionAppellate ReviewInsurer Recovery
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 26,696 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