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. ADJ1322165 (OAK 0234515) ADJ4051294 (OAK 0239085) ADJ590376 (OAK 0240882)
Regular
Apr 08, 2010

VICTORIA GOMEZ vs. CASA SANDOVAL, THE CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION in liquidation, by its servicing facility SEDGWICK CMS and GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, as administered by LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation seeking reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision that CIGA's reimbursement claim was not barred by prior rulings, statutes of limitations, or laches. Golden Eagle argued that a previous en banc decision established CIGA's sole liability, thus precluding relitigation. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the arbitrator's finding that the prior decision only established shared liability and reserved apportionment for further proceedings. The Board clarified that the arbitrator's ruling determined threshold issues, making it a final order subject to review, and that CIGA's right to reimbursement had not been definitively determined.

CIGAGolden Eagle Insurance CorporationPetition for ReconsiderationArbitratorEn banc decisionLaw of the caseStatute of limitationsLachesThreshold issueFinal order
References
12
Case No. ADJ7529761
Regular
Sep 02, 2018

MARIA GARCIA vs. GREEN CUISINE, INC., GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Southern Insurance Company seeking reconsideration of an arbitrator's award of contribution to Golden Eagle Insurance Company. Southern argued a contribution petition filed before a Compromise and Release (C&R) approval was void, and Golden Eagle missed the subsequent one-year limitations period. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the arbitrator's report and finding the initial petition timely filed under Labor Code Section 5500.5(e). The Board clarified that filing before award approval does not void a contribution petition, especially when the C&R doesn't require a refiling.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleasePetition for ContributionLabor Code section 5500.5(e)ContributionArbitratorFindings and AwardGolden Eagle Insurance CompanySouthern Insurance CompanyIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. FRE 0110112 and FRE 0114991
Regular
Feb 01, 2000

CENAIDA MEZA vs. SANDRINI BROTHERS, T & L HARVESTING, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) petitioned to be relieved as administrator of medical awards due to a solvent insurer's availability. The Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition, rescinding the prior decision and appointing Golden Eagle Insurance as the administrator. This decision aligns with precedent that CIGA is relieved of administrative duties when "other insurance" is available for successive injuries to the same body parts.

CIGAGolden Eagle InsuranceFremont InsuranceMedical Treatment AwardsSuccessive InjuriesApportionmentAdministratorSolvent InsurerInsolvencyCovered Claims
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2003

Local 8A-28A Welfare and 401 (K) Retirement Funds v. Golden Eagles Architectural Metal Cleaning and Refinishing

The plaintiffs, Local 8A-28A Welfare and 401(k) Retirement Funds, sued defendant Golden Eagles Architectural Metal Cleaning and Refinishing, alleging violations of ERISA Section 515 and a collective bargaining agreement for failing to submit to an audit. Golden Eagles moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and the requirement for arbitration. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, denied the motion, finding that personal jurisdiction existed over Golden Eagles due to ERISA's nationwide service of process provision, and venue was proper in the Southern District of New York as the Funds are administered there. Furthermore, the court determined that the Local 8A-28A Funds, as independent non-signatory entities, were not bound by the arbitration clause present in the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer. Consequently, Golden Eagles' motion to dismiss was denied.

ERISAPersonal JurisdictionVenueArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee BenefitsTrust FundsMotion to DismissNationwide Service of ProcessMinimum Contacts
References
26
Case No. ADJ1009271 (AHM 0055424)
Regular
Apr 27, 2009

MYRNA PEREZ vs. FIDELITY FEDERAL BANK, TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., REM, LTD, GOLDEN EAGLE

This case concerns a contribution dispute between two insurance carriers, TIG and Golden Eagle, for a cumulative trauma injury claim. Golden Eagle sought reconsideration of an order compelling it to pay over $\$101,000$ in contribution to TIG. Golden Eagle argued it was never properly served with a notice of intention and that Labor Code section 5275 mandates arbitration for contribution disputes. The Appeals Board agreed that mandatory arbitration applies, rescinded the order, and remanded the case for either informal resolution or arbitration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder of ContributionPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5275mandatory arbitrationContributionCumulative Trauma InjuryCompromise and Release AgreementPetition for ContributionNotice of Intention
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Corp. of New York v. United States Fire Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between a primary insurer, The Insurance Corporation of New York, and an excess insurer, United States Fire Insurance Company (US Fire), regarding the timeliness of claim notice and US Fire's subsequent disclaimer. The motion court initially denied US Fire's cross-motion for summary judgment, deeming its disclaimer untimely. However, the appellate court determined that US Fire received proper notice on April 20, 2006, not March 16, 2006, making its disclaimers, issued eight days later, timely as a matter of law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting US Fire's cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against it. Additionally, an appeal from a separate order regarding US Fire's request to rescind an insurance policy was dismissed as abandoned.

Insurance PolicyExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceTimely NoticeDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewClaim NotificationInsurance ContractLiability Insurance
References
9
Case No. ADJ1857578
Regular
Jun 23, 2009

MIRNA LICEA vs. MINSON CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for PHICO INSURANCE COMPANY in liquidation

This case involves a lien claim by Missirian Orthopedic Medical Group, assigned to KM Financial Services, for medical treatment provided to Mirna Licea. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), representing the insolvent insurer Phico Insurance Company, denied the lien based on Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), which excludes claims by assignees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the statute clearly prohibits payment to assignees, including medical providers who have assigned their accounts receivable. The Board relied on *Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. CIGA* for the principle that assigned claims are not "covered claims" under the Guarantee Act.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAPhico Insurance Companyliquidationinsolvent insurerlien claimantassigneecovered claimInsurance Code 1063.1(c)(9)
References
4
Case No. ADJ91 91280
Regular
Jun 26, 2017

ELEUTERIO COVARRUBIAS ACEVEDO vs. RANSCAPES, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant, Eleuterio Covarrubias Acevedo, versus defendants Ranscapes, Golden Eagle Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Because the WCAB was not persuaded that such harm would occur, or that reconsideration would be inadequate, the petition was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDenial of RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyFinal Decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ7580924 (MF), ADJ4184729 (SJO 0177821), ADJ1127103 (SJO 0179965), ADJ605452 (SJO 0166061)
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

IBRAHIM HAMAMJY vs. ENTEGRIS, INC.; SENTRY INSURANCE, ATCOR CALIFORNIA, INC.; GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration and denied Petitions for Removal filed by Entegris/Sentry Insurance and Atcor/Golden Eagle Insurance. The Board found that the August 29, 2011 Order consolidating three cases and taking them off calendar for further discovery was interlocutory, not a final order. Therefore, the reconsideration petition was improper. Removal petitions were denied as the Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no error in the consolidation and discovery order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEntegrisInc.Sentry InsuranceGolden Eagle Insurance CompanyPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJconsolidationinterlocutory order
References
1
Case No. 23
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company v. Allied Capital Corporation

This case addresses whether an arbitration panel exceeded its authority by reconsidering a "Partial Final Award" in an insurance dispute. The underlying dispute involved Ciena Capital LLC and Allied Capital Corporation seeking coverage from American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) after settling a federal qui tam action. Initially, the arbitration panel issued a partial award, which was later reconsidered and corrected to grant both indemnification and defense costs. AISLIC challenged this reconsideration, arguing the panel was functus officio. The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division ruling, holding that the initial "Partial Final Award" was not truly final because the parties had not mutually agreed to its finality. Consequently, the arbitration panel was deemed to have acted within its authority by reconsidering its initial determination, and the petition to vacate the corrected award was denied.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardReconsiderationArbitrator AuthorityInsurance CoverageIndemnificationDefense CostsQui Tam ActionNew York Court of Appeals
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 14,210 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