Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

• Sanctions under Labor Code §58132
• AOE/COE1
• Apportionment1
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Permanent disability rating1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141
• Permanent total disability1

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 3
• Los Angeles 1
• Oakland 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.

• 2 for the applicant
• 2 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 3 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

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

• ADJ8015380 · 2026-06-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.18For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the July 2, 2019 Findings and Order is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board deferred the issue of application of section 3600.5(b) because the question of Ohio's reciprocity statute effective date requires further factual development at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ4406140 · 2023-07-13 · Los Angeles District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.96. The Doctrine of Laches The equitable doctrine of laches may apply in workers' compensation proceedings. (See, e.g., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411]; Truck Ins. Exchange v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 394 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 685] (Kwok).) "The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay." (Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 351, 359-360, see also Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 77.) In addition, defendants must come to the determination with clean hands, and not be found to have participated in the delay. (See Kwok, supra.) In this instance, the sole basis for the WCJ's decision to reject applicant's attorneys' claims under sections 5813, 5800, 5814, and 5814.5 was that defendant successfully demonstrated the elements of laches. Upon review, we disagree with the WCJ's determination. With respect to delay, the WCJ found that the seventeen-year delay in requesting payment of the 5710 fees and bringing the Petition for Penalties was unreasonably long, and we do not

  The Appeals Board found that the defense of laches did not apply because defendant did not demonstrate prejudice or clean hands, and defendant's delay was partly due to its own inaction; therefore, the WCJ's laches finding was rescinded and penalties and fees were awarded accordingly.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ1533475 · 2022-04-28 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 13, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injuries to her low back arising out of and in the course of her employment on August 29, 2006 (case ADJ1533475) and during a cumulative period ending July 30, 2010 (ADJ8601078), as an underwriter, by defendant, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, caused permanent partial disability of 33% in the former case and 7% in the latter case. At the time of injuries, the employer was insured for workers' compensation liability by defendant, the American Insurance Company, adjusted by ESIS in case ADJ1533475 and by Sedgwick CMS in case ADJ8601078. Applicant contends in her petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in not finding that applicant's injuries caused permanent total disability. Defendant filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which she recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied.

  The WCJ found permanent partial disability of 33% and 7% in two cases, but applicant contended for permanent total disability; the WCJ report recommended denial of reconsideration, and the matter was resolved by compromise and release.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8015380 · 2026-03-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the July 2, 2019 Findings & Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concluded that applicant could not recover compensation for his cumulative injury because recovery against the terminal employer, the Cleveland Browns ("Browns"),2 was barred by Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivision (b),3 and because there was no basis under section 5500.5, subdivision (a) to roll back liability to the Minnesota Vikings ("Vikings"), applicant's prior employer. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because either (1) section 3600.5, subdivision (b) does not apply to this claim because applicant was hired in California during the period of injurious exposure, and/or (2) liability under section 5500.5, subdivision (a) should roll back if the terminal employer is exempt according to the former section.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues regarding the applicability of Labor Code sections 3600.5 and 5500.5 to the applicant's cumulative injury claim, and allowed further briefing to consider recent case law.

  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.

• FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY
• FIREMAN'S FUND
• Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

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.