Top
Stories

Latest News

Court Rules That Name Changes Do Not Prevent Workers’ Compensation Payout

A series of company name changes and internal corporate mergers do not prevent an employer from tapping the California Insurance Guarantee Association, a state appeals court rules.

  • October 7, 2009
  • Comments (0)

A series of company name changes and internal corporate mergers do not prevent an employer from tapping the California Insurance Guarantee Association, a state appeals court ruled Monday, October 5.

In Catholic Healthcare West v. California Insurance Guarantee Assn., a hospital nurse suffered a back injury in 1985. By 2004, workers’ compensation indemnity and medical benefits costs for the claim had grown to $1.6 million.

The nurse’s employer first paid out $150,000 in benefits, meeting its self-insured retention under an excess workers’ comp policy. But by the time it exceeded the $150,000 retention, the employer’s insurer, Mission Insurance Co., was insolvent, court records show.

The employer continued to pay claim expenses while requesting that CIGA reimburse it for the amount its insurer would have paid.

The initial CIGA claims were presented under one employer name, while subsequent claims were presented by an affiliated corporation that the first entity eventually merged into under corporate restructuring.

When a legal battle resulted over whether CIGA should pay the claims, the guarantee fund argued the employer was not covered because Mission insured a company by a different name.

A trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CIGA, agreeing that California law excludes “any claim by any person other than the original claimant under the insurance policy in his or her own name,” court records state.

The appeals court overturned, ruling the claims were covered “despite the fact that the corporation changed its name to a name not listed in the insurance policy.”

The appeals court also said the original insured includes the affiliated corporation into which the first corporation was merged because the merger was an internal restructuring of a family of corporations.

The appeals court remanded the case.

Filed by Roberto Ceniceros of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Leave A Comment

Guidelines: Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content you post.

Daily Q&A

How Do We Build a World-Class Recruiting Department?

I need to establish a strategic plan on how we can become a world-class staffing/recruiting department. Unfortunately, all the historical data from previous recruiting managers got tossed. Do you have any simple tips on how to begin this ambitious plan?

—World-Class Ambition, staffing manager, software/services, Pennsylvania

Read Answer

Stay Connected

Join our community for unlimited access to the latest tips, news and information in the HR world.

HR Jobs

View All Job Listings

Search