Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Insurance Code
Insurance Code section 1063.2(a)
CIGA's mandate to pay covered claims of insolvent insurers
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Insurance Code section 1063.2(a), CIGA`s fundamental statutory mandate is
to pay and discharge the "covered claims" of insolvent insurers. Insurance Code section
1063.1(c)(1) sets forth the general definition of "covered claims," which, as relevant here, includes
"the obligations of an insolvent insurer... (i) imposed by law and within the coverage of an
insurance policy of the insolvent insurer... [and] (vi) in the case of a policy of workers'
compensation insurance, to provide workers' compensation benefits under the workers'
compensation law of this state...." (See also Cal. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Workers' Compensation
Appeals Bd. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 356 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 186]; Cal. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.
Insurance Code
Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(1)
Definition of covered claims including workers' compensation benefits
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Insurance Code section 1063.2(a), CIGA`s fundamental statutory mandate is
to pay and discharge the "covered claims" of insolvent insurers. Insurance Code section
1063.1(c)(1) sets forth the general definition of "covered claims," which, as relevant here, includes
"the obligations of an insolvent insurer... (i) imposed by law and within the coverage of an
insurance policy of the insolvent insurer... [and] (vi) in the case of a policy of workers'
compensation insurance, to provide workers' compensation benefits under the workers'
compensation law of this state...." (See also Cal. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Workers' Compensation
Appeals Bd. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 356 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 186]; Cal. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.
Insurance Code
Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)(i)
Exclusion of claims covered by other insurance from CIGA's duties
From the decision · page 3(2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 364 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 1448].)
Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)(i) provides that "'[c]overed claims' [do] not include any claim
to the extent it is covered by any other insurance of a class covered by this article [14.2] available
to the claimant or insured [.]" As such, in cases where there is coverage by a solvent insurer, CIGA
has no duty to pay and discharge any claims.
Case and statutory law, however, make clear that CIGA is not an "insurer" in the ordinary
sense as CIGA is not an insurance company, its duties are not co-extensive with the insolvent
insurer's obligations, and it does not stand in the shoes of the insolvent insurer.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 4659(a)
Life pension benefits for permanent disability over 70%
From the decision · page 5Turning to the issue of life pension, Labor Code section 4659(a) provides in relevant part:
case
Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 399
No apportionment of medical treatment liability
From the decision · page 4In addition, there is no apportionment of medical treatment. (Granado v. Workmen's Comp.
Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 399 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647], Dorman v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (1978) 78 Cal. App. 3d 1009, 1020 [43 Cal. Comp. Cases 302, 309].) Particularly where
treatment to overlapping body parts for multiple injuries is involved or where treatment for
case
Dorman v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 78 Cal. App. 3d 1009
No apportionment of medical treatment liability
From the decision · page 4In addition, there is no apportionment of medical treatment. (Granado v. Workmen's Comp.
Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 399 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647], Dorman v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (1978) 78 Cal. App. 3d 1009, 1020 [43 Cal. Comp. Cases 302, 309].) Particularly where
treatment to overlapping body parts for multiple injuries is involved or where treatment for
case
California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weitzman) (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 307
WCAB cannot apportion liability between CIGA and insurers
From the decision · page 4Moreover, the Nokes holding referenced above does not accurately reflect the current state
of the law. It is now well established that, contrary to the holdings in Nokes, the WCAB cannot
apportion liability for medical treatment and temporary disability indemnity between CIGA and
insurers. (California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weitzman) (2005) 128
Cal.App.4th 307 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 556]; CIGA v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (Hooten)
(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 569 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 551].) Furthermore, in a recent case, a Court of
Appeal held that CIGA was not bound by the liability allocation agreed between the parties in a
Compromise and Release prior to CIGA's administration of the claim because, although the
Compromise and Release was a judgment, "the judgment merely apportioned liability; it did not
change the joint and several nature of the now-apportioned liability." (California Ins. Guarantee
Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lopez) (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1021 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases
317].) In sum, the current state of the law is that, if CIGA and an insurer are jointly and severally
liable for non-permanent disability benefits, the WCAB cannot apportion liability between CIGA
and an insurer. Therefore, CIGA is not bound by a pre-liquidation settlement apportioning liability.
case
CIGA v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (Hooten) (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 569
WCAB cannot apportion liability between CIGA and insurers
From the decision · page 4Moreover, the Nokes holding referenced above does not accurately reflect the current state
of the law. It is now well established that, contrary to the holdings in Nokes, the WCAB cannot
apportion liability for medical treatment and temporary disability indemnity between CIGA and
insurers. (California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weitzman) (2005) 128
Cal.App.4th 307 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 556]; CIGA v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (Hooten)
(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 569 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 551].) Furthermore, in a recent case, a Court of
Appeal held that CIGA was not bound by the liability allocation agreed between the parties in a
Compromise and Release prior to CIGA's administration of the claim because, although the
Compromise and Release was a judgment, "the judgment merely apportioned liability; it did not
change the joint and several nature of the now-apportioned liability." (California Ins. Guarantee
Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lopez) (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1021 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases
317].) In sum, the current state of the law is that, if CIGA and an insurer are jointly and severally
liable for non-permanent disability benefits, the WCAB cannot apportion liability between CIGA
and an insurer. Therefore, CIGA is not bound by a pre-liquidation settlement apportioning liability.
case
California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lopez) (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1021
CIGA not bound by pre-liquidation apportionment
From the decision · page 4Moreover, the Nokes holding referenced above does not accurately reflect the current state
of the law. It is now well established that, contrary to the holdings in Nokes, the WCAB cannot
apportion liability for medical treatment and temporary disability indemnity between CIGA and
insurers. (California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weitzman) (2005) 128
Cal.App.4th 307 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 556]; CIGA v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (Hooten)
(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 569 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 551].) Furthermore, in a recent case, a Court of
Appeal held that CIGA was not bound by the liability allocation agreed between the parties in a
Compromise and Release prior to CIGA's administration of the claim because, although the
Compromise and Release was a judgment, "the judgment merely apportioned liability; it did not
change the joint and several nature of the now-apportioned liability." (California Ins. Guarantee
Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lopez) (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1021 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases
317].) In sum, the current state of the law is that, if CIGA and an insurer are jointly and severally
liable for non-permanent disability benefits, the WCAB cannot apportion liability between CIGA
and an insurer. Therefore, CIGA is not bound by a pre-liquidation settlement apportioning liability.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5705
Affirmative burden of proof on laches defense
From the decision · page 6Laches is an affirmative defense, and therefore SCIF had the affirmative burden of proof.
case
Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal.3d 351
Elements of laches: unreasonable delay plus prejudice
From the decision · page 6As we pointed out in Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1
Cal.3d 351 [82 Cal. Rptr. 337, 461 P.2d 617], the affirmative defense of laches
requires unreasonable delay in bringing suit "plus either acquiescence in the act
about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the
delay." (Id., at p. 359, fns. omitted.) Prejudice is never presumed; rather it must be
affirmatively demonstrated by the defendant in order to sustain his burdens of proof
and the production of evidence on the issue. (Id., at p. 361.)" (Miller, supra, 27
Cal.3d at p. 624, emphasis added.)
case
Miller v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1980) 27 Cal.3d 614
Prejudice must be affirmatively demonstrated for laches
From the decision · page 6As we pointed out in Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1
Cal.3d 351 [82 Cal. Rptr. 337, 461 P.2d 617], the affirmative defense of laches
requires unreasonable delay in bringing suit "plus either acquiescence in the act
about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the
delay." (Id., at p. 359, fns. omitted.) Prejudice is never presumed; rather it must be
affirmatively demonstrated by the defendant in order to sustain his burdens of proof
and the production of evidence on the issue. (Id., at p. 361.)" (Miller, supra, 27
Cal.3d at p. 624, emphasis added.)
case
Truck Ins. Exchange v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kwok) (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 394
WCAB has broad equitable powers; equitable doctrines apply in workers' compensation
From the decision · page 61 "The appeals board has broad equitable powers with respect to matters within its jurisdiction. (Dyer v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1382 [28 Cal.Rptr.2d 30].) Thus, equitable doctrines...are applicable
in workers' compensation litigation. (State Farm General Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 218
Cal.App.4th 258, 268 [159 Cal.Rptr.3d 779]; 2 Hanna, Cal. Law of Employee Injuries and Workers' Compensation
(rev. 2d ed. 2016) § 24.03[1], p. 24-14 (rel. 81-3/2015).)" (Truck Ins. Exchange v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kwok)
(2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 394, 401 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 685].)