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. ADJ1817205 (RIV 0076837) ADJ2824273 (RIV 0076838)
Regular
Jul 02, 2014

SONNY LOVELESS vs. NEWPORT FARMS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., VIRGINIA SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over reimbursement for workers' compensation benefits paid by CIGA. The Appeals Board affirmed an arbitrator's decision granting CIGA full reimbursement from Virginia Surety and Zurich for benefits paid to the applicant. Virginia Surety's arguments that the cumulative trauma periods should be reevaluated and that CIGA was liable for the first period were rejected. The Board found Virginia Surety is bound by prior stipulations establishing two cumulative trauma periods, making its coverage "other insurance" under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9) and thus excluding CIGA's liability for those benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSonny LovelessNewport FarmsCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Superior NationalZurich American Insurance Co.Virginia Surety Insurance Companycumulative traumastipulated awardreimbursement
References
4
Case No. ADJ7516108
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ANGELICA CROTTE vs. UFO, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Virginia Surety's petition for removal because it was unverified, violating WCAB Rule 10843(b). The WCAB also noted the petition's excessive length and improper attachments, which violated multiple rules, including CA Rule 10232(a)(10) and WCAB Rule 10842(c). Based on these egregious violations, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on Virginia Surety's counsel, Sophia E. Martinez, pursuant to Labor Code section 5813.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB RulesLabor Code 5813SanctionsFrivolousWillful Failure to ComplyWCJAdministrative Law JudgeVirginia Surety Company
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. ADJ2087163 (SJO 0269417)
Regular
Oct 04, 2011

JOSE CHIRINOS vs. HEARTWOOD CABINET, MAJESTIC INURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a contribution claim between two insurance carriers, Virginia Surety and Majestic Insurance, for benefits paid to applicant Jose Chirinos. The arbitrator awarded Virginia Surety contribution, but apportioned benefits, finding only 30% attributable to cumulative trauma injury covered by Majestic, with the remainder from a specific injury covered by Virginia Surety. Virginia Surety challenged the admissibility of Dr. Scott's report, which formed the basis for this apportionment, as it was not based on a physical examination. The Appeals Board affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding Dr. Scott's report admissible under the unique circumstances of contribution proceedings where the applicant is uncooperative and discovery rights are deferred.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationContributionCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryApportionmentPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerDiscovery RightsLabor Code Section 5500.5Medical Records Review
References
6
Case No. ADJ10526250
Regular
Oct 17, 2017

BARRY PRIES vs. LIVERMORE AUTO CENTER, MARKEL SERVICES OMAHA, HARVEY & MADDLING, INC., dba DUBLIN HONDA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SEDGWICK CMS for ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed a stipulated award where the applicant settled a claim for a 2005 injury for $7,500. CIGA argued that this settlement improperly impacted its potential recovery for a 2008 injury, claiming benefits it paid were actually due to the earlier injury and that Virginia Surety was "other insurance." However, the Board found CIGA failed to establish joint and several liability between CIGA and Virginia Surety for the benefits at issue. The settlement itself does not alter CIGA's burden to prove such liability to seek reimbursement from Virginia Surety.

CIGAother insurancejoint and several liabilityinsolvent insurercovered claimsstipulated awardWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardmedical treatmenttemporary disability indemnitycumulative injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1958

West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. A. D. Lewis

The case involves an interpleader action brought by West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company concerning union dues collected from its employees. Rival claims for these funds were made by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and an "Organizing Committee" formed by disaffiliating members of Local 12915. The core dispute revolved around the legitimacy of the disaffiliation and the validity of District 50's claim to the local's assets and checked-off dues. The court ultimately ruled in favor of District 50 and the temporary administrator of Local 12915, upholding the existing collective bargaining agreement and union constitution. The cross-claim by the "Organizing Committee" was dismissed, and the plaintiff was discharged from liability.

InterpleaderUnion Dues DisputeLabor Union DisaffiliationCollective BargainingProperty Rights of UnionsTemporary AdministrationNational Labor Relations BoardContract FrustrationDue ProcessTrade Union Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1992

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurer's claim for contribution. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, the liability insurer for Trio Drug Corporation and additional insured 58 Realopp Corporation, sought contribution from Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, Trio's workers' compensation carrier. Aetna had settled an underlying injury action where it represented both Realopp and Trio, and subsequently sued for 50% of the settlement amount. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Aetna's summary judgment motion and the granting of Greater New York's cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court applied the anti-subrogation rule, finding that Aetna could not assert a subrogated claim against its own insured, Trio, due to potential conflicts of interest arising from its dual representation in the underlying action.

anti-subrogation ruleconflict of interestsummary judgmentcontributionworkers' compensationliability insurancethird-party claimcommon law indemnityappellate reviewinsurer dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This case concerns a dispute between insurance carriers following a workers' compensation claim. Douglas K. Ellsmore was injured while unloading a hospital bed when Shirley S. Miller, insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, backed her car into him. Ellsmore's employer's workers' compensation carrier, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, paid over $65,000 in benefits and then sought reimbursement from State Farm via a loss transfer claim and demanded arbitration under Insurance Law § 5105. State Farm initiated a special proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, arguing that Aetna's claim lacked legal basis. Special Term denied the stay, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The court clarified that the "for hire" provision in Insurance Law § 5105 modifies "vehicle," limiting its application to vehicles hired for transporting people (like taxis) or livery vehicles for property, and does not extend to commercial deliveries by an owner's vehicle. Consequently, Aetna was not entitled to recover compensation payments under this statute.

Insurance LawWorkers' CompensationAutomobile InsuranceLoss Transfer ClaimArbitration StayStatutory Interpretation"For Hire" ClauseCommercial DeliveryVehicle InsuranceFirst-Party Payments
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Olga Coal Co.

The Chapter 11 Successor Trustee of Olga Coal Company objected to the priority status of claims filed by the State of West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Division, which sought administrative or tax priority for post-petition payments related to pre-petition workers' compensation injuries. The court denied administrative priority, ruling that the claims arose pre-petition from the date of injury. However, the court found the State’s reimbursement obligation met the criteria for an excise tax under federal and state law, distinguishing it from private surety claims. Consequently, tax priority was granted, but only for claims related to injuries that occurred within the three years immediately preceding the bankruptcy petition date, with the remainder treated as general, non-priority unsecured claims.

BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationClaim PriorityAdministrative PriorityExcise TaxPre-petition ClaimsGovernmental ClaimsSurety BondsWest Virginia LawChapter 11
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Deraway v. Bulk Storage, Inc.

A New York resident claimant, employed by an Illinois-based corporation, was injured in Pennsylvania while working as a carpenter in December 2004. After his initial workers’ compensation claim in Illinois was denied, he filed for benefits in New York. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found New York jurisdiction and awarded benefits, ruling that the employer's policy with Virginia Surety Company covered the claim. Both the employer and the carrier (Virginia Surety Company and its third-party administrator) appealed the decision, challenging jurisdiction and policy coverage. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. The Appellate Division further affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported New York's jurisdiction due to the employer's significant contacts with New York and that the carrier's policy covered the claim, as the employee was principally employed in Illinois.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionOut-of-State InjuryInsurance PolicyEmployment ContractConflict of LawsIllinois EmploymentAppellate ReviewPolicy CoverageStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 182 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