Southern 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
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1

Where they appear

• Long Beach 2
• Van Nuys 2
• Santa Ana 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
• 1 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 4 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.

• ADJ10371658 · 2026-04-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In his Report, the WCJ further stated that: Although defendants' arguments were ultimately found to be incorrect, there is reasonable ambiguity in the regulations with respect to both whether settlement interpreting costs are allowed at all, as well as the amount. There is no binding en banc or appellate opinion to make defendants' position on this issue unwarranted.... Section 10421(6)(7), which defines sanctionable "bad faith actions or tactics" under Labor Code section 5813 as including presenting a claim or a defense, or raising an issue or argument, that is not warranted under existing law. Also mitigating against a finding of sanctionable conduct are the reasonable ambiguities in the law, which are to be considered under Section 10421(6)(7)(A), and the impression that defendants have preserved and raised this issue in good faith for the purpose of adjudication, which is to be considered under Section 1042l(b)(7)(B).

  The WCJ found, and the WCAB agreed, that there was reasonable ambiguity in the regulations regarding settlement interpreting costs and no binding authority, so defendant's position was not unwarranted or in bad faith. Thus, sanctions and attorney fees were not appropriate.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16872275 · 2025-05-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5We disagree with the WCJ's finding as to whether a contested claim existed because the WCJ appears to construe the meaning of "contested issues" very narrowly. Defendant authorized treatment and eventually accepted liability for two body parts, but this did not mean that defendant did not dispute any other issues such as injury to other claimed body parts, temporary disability and permanent disability. As is demonstrated by defendant's Answer and the WCJ's OACR, defendant continued to dispute liability for benefits throughout the pendency of applicant's case.

  The Appeals Board found that a contested claim existed on February 10, 2023, contrary to the WCJ's narrow finding, because defendant continued to dispute liability for some claimed body parts and benefits, thus meeting the statutory definition of a contested claim under Labor Code section 4620.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14362966 · 2023-11-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 14, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that Applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of COVID-19; and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his injury claim.

  The WCJ's original finding that the applicant did not sustain a COVID-19 injury AOE/COE was rescinded because the QME's opinion was found speculative and lacking scientific basis, warranting further proceedings including deposition of the QME.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11065911 · 2022-12-27 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10Defendant has engaged in a course of conduct, after being elected, co-opting the QME panel of the elected out party, ignoring the election statute, not complying with the rules and regulations that would allow for another evaluation, and doing so to obtain a medical report which would have been inadmissible at trial, flagrantly violating LC 5813 and 8 CCR 10421(b). Their course of conduct defines actions that are frivolous, without merit, pursued for an improper purpose and demonstrate a willful failure to comply with the applicable statutes and regulations. It is for these reasons that the sanction is appropriate.

  The defendant engaged in a course of conduct violating the election statute and regulations, constituting frivolous and improper actions warranting sanctions.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ11065911 · 2021-09-09 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalnot_reached

  Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's decision solely resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and we will vacate our previous Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration. Defendant's Petition will be dismissed as one seeking reconsideration.

  The WCJ's decision was not a 'final' order as it resolved only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, and defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.

• SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY
• Southern Insurance Company
• SOUTHERN INSURANCE DALLAS
• SOUTHERN CAL GAS

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.