What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's Findings and Order, holding that the special employer's insurer's policy constitutes 'other insurance' relieving CIGA of liability, and dismissed CIGA as a party defendant.
The WCJ issued a Findings and Order on October 31, 2002, dismissing CIGA as a party defendant. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reassigned the case for an en banc decision to secure uniformity of decision.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
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.
From the decision · page 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 facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The general employer, Remedy Temp, was insured by Reliance, which became insolvent.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This insolvency triggered the question of CIGA's liability and the applicability of 'other insurance' under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9).
From the decision · page 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 special employer, Jacuzzi, had a workers' compensation policy with American Home Assurance (AHA) with no specific exclusions for temporary employees.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The absence of exclusions meant AHA's policy constituted 'other insurance' relieving CIGA of liability.
From the decision · page 9compensation claims would be covered by AHA. After reviewing the policy in its entirety, 19
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)
Where the workers' compensation carrier for the general employer has become insolvent, and there are no specific exclusions from the workers' compensation policy of the special employer, the policy provided by the insurer of the special employer constitutes 'other insurance' within the meaning of Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9).
Applied to determine liability of CIGA and insurers.
From the decision · page 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
Labor Code section 3602(d)
Labor Code section 3602(d) governs the service agreement between general and special employers regarding workers' compensation coverage.
Referenced in relation to the alternate employer endorsement and coverage issues.
From the decision · page 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 same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.