California WCABInsurance carrier

Reliance Insurance Company

Reliance Insurance Company is named as an insurance carrier in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2002–2024. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Jurisdiction / venue (1) and QME/AME process (1). Defense most often ran through Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara (3). The employer appearing most often is Xcel Mechanical System, INC. (2). The office that heard the most of them is Anaheim.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2002–2024
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 4

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this insurance carrier is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Who defends them

6 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Whose claims they run

Xcel Mechanical System, INC.2
Carolina Panthers1
Compuware Corporation1
Indianapolis Colts1
Jacuzzi Whirlpool Bath Aka Bath Acquisition1
Minnesota Vikings1
New York Jets1
Oakland Raiders1
Recreational World, INC.1
Remedy Temp, INC.1

Where they appear

Anaheim 3
Long Beach 1
Pomona 1
San Diego 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this insurance carrier does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

3 for the applicant
2 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 7 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this insurance carrier is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ8309831 · 2021-11-23 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.8The medical reports in the trial record are contradictory and confusing. As explained above, the doctors' opinions are not based on adequate information, and they appear to be the result of the physicians' speculation, conjecture, or guess. Again, based on our review of the trial record, it is clear that the record does not contain substantial evidence upon which the issue of injury AOE/COE can be made.4
The WCJ's findings on injury AOE/COE were not supported by substantial evidence due to inconsistent and speculative medical opinions; the WCAB rescinded the prior decision and remanded for further proceedings with a new medical-legal report.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ487398 · 2024-08-20 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In its December 18, 2023 decision, the Court distinguished the circumstances of Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493], and found that there was no equitable tolling because it was "CIGA's own inaction that denied it a remedy." (Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1213, 1239- 1240 [89 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The Court thus directed the Appeals Board to rescind its June 13, 2022 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration of the California Guarantee Insurance Association ("CIGA") and its August 8, 2022 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. (Id. at pp. 1240-1241.) The Court also directed the Board to order the dismissal of Zurich American Insurance Company as a defendant, based on the denial of CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration by operation of law under Labor Code section 5909. (Ibid.)
The Court of Appeal directed the Appeals Board to rescind prior decisions and dismiss Zurich American Insurance Company as a defendant based on denial of CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration by operation of law under Labor Code section 5909.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ487398 · 2022-08-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.7Here, the WCA failed to electronically file a copy of the arbitration record with the Report. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10995(c)(3).) The Appeals Board has not received these documents despite repeated requests.9 As a result, the Appeals Board has no access to the arbitration file, and cannot review any of the exhibits filed by the parties; the minutes of the arbitration proceedings; any stipulations and issues entered into by the parties; the arbitrator's summary and description of exhibits admitted into evidence; the arbitrator's evidentiary rulings; the witnesses who testified with a summary of their testimony; verbatim transcripts of witness testimony; or even the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision at issue herein. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914(c).)
The Appeals Board could not conduct a meaningful review because the arbitrator failed to forward the arbitration record as required, depriving the Board of the ability to review the evidence and proceedings. Due process and regulatory requirements mandate remand for a new decision based on a complete record.
Official decision · page 7 →
2003-eb1 · 2003-03-28 · Pomona District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.210 a majority vote of its members, reassigned this case to the Appeals Board as a whole for an en 11 banc decision. (Labor Code, § 115.)2 We conclude that where the workers' compensation carrier
The Appeals Board held that the special employer's insurer's policy constitutes 'other insurance' relieving CIGA of liability, affirming the WCJ's dismissal of CIGA as a party defendant.
Official decision · page 2 →
2002-eb9 · 2002-11-11Other disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.125 The sole issue raised by Compuware in its petition for reconsideration is the entity against
The Appeals Board en banc found that Reliance National Insurance Company, not Compuware Corporation, was the proper entity liable for benefits, and substituted Reliance in the WCJ's Findings and Award.
Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same insurance carrier is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

Reliance Insurance Company
RELIANCE/SABLE
Reliance National Insurance Company
RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY CO.
RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY

Is this your company and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this insurance carrier is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Reliance Insurance Company

Decisions

Years

2002–2024

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

2 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Counted over 7 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this insurance carrier is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ8309831 · 2021-11-23 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.8The medical reports in the trial record are contradictory and confusing. As explained above, the doctors' opinions are not based on adequate information, and they appear to be the result of the physicians' speculation, conjecture, or guess. Again, based on our review of the trial record, it is clear that the record does not contain substantial evidence upon which the issue of injury AOE/COE can be made.4

The WCJ's findings on injury AOE/COE were not supported by substantial evidence due to inconsistent and speculative medical opinions; the WCAB rescinded the prior decision and remanded for further proceedings with a new medical-legal report.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ487398 · 2024-08-20 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In its December 18, 2023 decision, the Court distinguished the circumstances of Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493], and found that there was no equitable tolling because it was "CIGA's own inaction that denied it a remedy." (Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1213, 1239- 1240 [89 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The Court thus directed the Appeals Board to rescind its June 13, 2022 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration of the California Guarantee Insurance Association ("CIGA") and its August 8, 2022 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. (Id. at pp. 1240-1241.) The Court also directed the Board to order the dismissal of Zurich American Insurance Company as a defendant, based on the denial of CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration by operation of law under Labor Code section 5909. (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal directed the Appeals Board to rescind prior decisions and dismiss Zurich American Insurance Company as a defendant based on denial of CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration by operation of law under Labor Code section 5909.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ487398 · 2022-08-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.7Here, the WCA failed to electronically file a copy of the arbitration record with the Report. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10995(c)(3).) The Appeals Board has not received these documents despite repeated requests.9 As a result, the Appeals Board has no access to the arbitration file, and cannot review any of the exhibits filed by the parties; the minutes of the arbitration proceedings; any stipulations and issues entered into by the parties; the arbitrator's summary and description of exhibits admitted into evidence; the arbitrator's evidentiary rulings; the witnesses who testified with a summary of their testimony; verbatim transcripts of witness testimony; or even the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision at issue herein. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914(c).)

The Appeals Board could not conduct a meaningful review because the arbitrator failed to forward the arbitration record as required, depriving the Board of the ability to review the evidence and proceedings. Due process and regulatory requirements mandate remand for a new decision based on a complete record.

Official decision · page 7 →

2003-eb1 · 2003-03-28 · Pomona District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.210 a majority vote of its members, reassigned this case to the Appeals Board as a whole for an en 11 banc decision. (Labor Code, § 115.)2 We conclude that where the workers' compensation carrier

The Appeals Board held that the special employer's insurer's policy constitutes 'other insurance' relieving CIGA of liability, affirming the WCJ's dismissal of CIGA as a party defendant.

Official decision · page 2 →

2002-eb9 · 2002-11-11Other disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.125 The sole issue raised by Compuware in its petition for reconsideration is the entity against

The Appeals Board en banc found that Reliance National Insurance Company, not Compuware Corporation, was the proper entity liable for benefits, and substituted Reliance in the WCJ's Findings and Award.

Official decision · page 1 →