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. ADJ8246745
Regular
Dec 19, 2017

Tommy Martinez vs. Security Paving Company, The Hartford Insurance Company

This case concerns Tommy Martinez's workers' compensation claim against Security Paving Company. The Board granted reconsideration to amend the award, finding Martinez did not sustain a compensable psychiatric injury due to insufficient employment duration. However, the Board affirmed the finding of permanent total disability from his orthopedic injury, ruling it unapportionable and supported by substantial medical evidence independent of vocational reports. The dissenting opinion argues the vocational evidence and QME's opinion on total disability are not substantial, lacking clarity on work capacity due to industrial injury versus other factors.

WCABSecurity Paving CompanyThe Hartford Insurance CompanyTommy MartinezADJ8246745Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpermanent total disabilitycumulative trauma injuryshoulders
References
4
Case No. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security Insurance

The case examines if an insurer's breach of the duty to defend obligates it to indemnify the insured for a settlement, even when coverage is contested. Plaintiff Servidone Construction Corporation, an insured, settled an underlying claim after its insurer, Security Insurance Company, withdrew defense citing a policy exclusion. The lower courts ruled that Security was liable to indemnify Servidone due to its breach and the possibility of coverage. The Court of Appeals reversed, asserting that a duty to indemnify only arises from an actual covered loss, not merely from a breach of the duty to defend. It placed the burden on the insurer to prove the loss was not covered and remitted the case for further proceedings to determine actual policy coverage.

Duty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractInsurance LawSettlement AgreementCoverage DisputeWorkers' CompensationFederal Tort Claims ActCommon Law IndemnityContractual Indemnity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moskal v. Fleet Bank

Plaintiff Mark Moskal, a jeweler, was robbed in Fleet Bank's basement vault area after being directed by a security guard to use a stairwell due to elevator renovations. Moskal and his wife sued Fleet Bank, the building owner (UOB Realty), managing agent (Axiom Real Estate), security company (Effective Security Systems, Inc.), and contractor (Interior Construction Company), alleging negligence for failure to protect him from foreseeable danger. The court granted summary judgment to UOB, Axiom, Security, and Interior, finding the attack unforeseeable by them and no duty owed. However, Fleet Bank's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, as the court found questions of fact for a jury regarding Fleet's potential duty to Moskal, given its awareness of the stairwell's danger and its specific policy prohibiting customer use, which was allegedly disregarded.

ForeseeabilityNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty of CareCriminal Act of Third PersonsBank SecurityStairwell DangerConstruction NegligenceRobbery
References
18
Case No. ADJ13021836; ADJ13022571; ADJ17282642; ADJ20509785; ADJ20509813
Regular
Sep 08, 2025

MARTINA VARELAS vs. PALMDALE LODGING ASSOCIATES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Security National Insurance Company sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) decision regarding injuries sustained by applicant Martina Varelas. The WCJ had found that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory and reproductive systems across multiple employment periods and adjudication numbers. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the WCJ had not sufficiently explained the basis for the decision on injury AOE/COE and liability, and that the record needed further development. A final decision on the merits has been deferred pending further review.

AOE/COEexcretory system injuryreproductive system injurycumulative traumaspecific injuryslip and falldate of injuryLabor Code section 5412Labor Code section 5500.5Petition for Reconsideration
References
25
Case No. ADJ9651491
Regular
Aug 22, 2016

JUDITH DIAZ vs. EXCELL SECURITY, INC., XL STAFFING, INC., XL CONSTRUCTION STAFFING; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY, in liquidation by its servicing facility, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES; SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY by GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior finding that Sparta Insurance Company provided workers' compensation coverage for Judith Diaz. The Board found that Sparta's policy with Excell Security, Inc. did not exclude Diaz from coverage, despite Excell also having a policy with Ullico Casualty Company. Therefore, Sparta is considered "other insurance" and liable for applicant's benefits, upholding the Arbitrator's initial decision.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderArbitratorother insuranceLabor Code section 1063California Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAULLICO CASUALTY COMPANYliquidation
References
2
Case No. ADJ11391724, ADJ11391757
Regular
Oct 03, 2019

PABLO LOPEZ DURAN vs. SOUTH HILLS ACADEMY, CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, CRESCENT HOTELS & RESORTS, LLC, CHUBB INSURANCE GROUP, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Pablo Lopez Duran and multiple defendants including South Hills Academy, Church Mutual Insurance Company, Security National Insurance Company, Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC, and Chubb Insurance Group. The Board granted a petition for reconsideration and affirmed a prior order regarding sanctions and costs. Specifically, Chubb Insurance Group, administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., was ordered to pay an additional $395 for attorneys' fees related to a petition for fees, less any credit for prior payments.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSOUTH HILLS ACADEMYCHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANYSECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYAMTRUST NORTH AMERICACRESCENT HOTELS & RESORTSLLCCHUBB INSURANCE GROUPGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICESINC.
References
0
Case No. ADJ8278101 ADJ8278102 ADJ10320660
Regular
Jan 30, 2017

JESUS GUZMAN vs. ABBOT’S PIZZA, LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves multiple petitions stemming from an administrative law judge's rescission of a previously approved Compromise and Release. The Appeals Board dismissed Security National's petitions as they were not a party to the original agreement and dismissed Employers Comp's petition due to withdrawal. Insurance Company of the West's reconsideration petition was dismissed as interlocutory, but its removal petition was granted to address due process concerns. The Board amended the rescission order to require a hearing on whether the original settlement should be rescinded, returning the case to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Compromise and ReleaseOrder ApprovingOrder RescindingPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSupplemental PleadingSanctionsAggrieved PartyFinal DecisionInterlocutory Order
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commercial Risk Reinsurance Co. v. Security Insurance

Petitioners Commercial Risk Reinsurance Company Limited and Commercial Risk Re-Insurance Company (collectively “Commercial Risk”) initiated an action to vacate an arbitration award obtained by respondent Security Insurance Company of Hartford (“Security”). Security subsequently cross-moved to confirm the Award. The District Court denied Commercial Risk’s motion to vacate and granted Security’s motion to confirm the Award, finding that Commercial Risk failed to establish sufficient grounds for misconduct by the arbitrators. Commercial Risk then sought reconsideration of this order, arguing improper exclusion of a witness and documents related to damages. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its original decision and emphasizing the broad discretion granted to arbitrators in procedural matters, particularly given the "Honorable Engagement" clause in the parties' agreement.

ArbitrationReinsurance ContractsVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardMotion for ReconsiderationFederal Arbitration ActInternational ArbitrationEvidentiary RulingsJudicial ReviewArbitrator Discretion
References
27
Case No. ADJ6607637
Regular
Jul 01, 2010

NATHAN WINES vs. SDA SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where Insurance Company of the West (ICW) seeks reconsideration of an arbitration decision barring its contribution claim against Zenith Insurance Company. The arbitrator initially found ICW's contribution proceedings were untimely, but now recommends granting reconsideration based on new case law. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board agreed that a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed can satisfy the "institute proceedings" requirement for contribution claims under Labor Code §5500.5(e), reversing the prior decision and returning the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardArbitration DecisionStatute of LimitationsContribution ProceedingsDeclaration of ReadinessLabor Code §5500.5(e)Stipulated AwardCumulative InjuryIndustrial InjuryInsurance Coverage
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,148 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