United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue2

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 5

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.

• ADJ13208164 · 2024-04-08 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on January 19, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed from June 1, 1987, through October 1, 2002, as a professional baseball player, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, neck, legs, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, back, knees, ankles, feet, toes, and injury in the form of sleep and nervous system while employed by the Los Angeles Dodgers from June 3, 1987, to October 15, 1993; the Seattle Mariners from February 18, 1994 to May 13, 1995; the Montreal Expos from May 17, 1995 to October 15, 1996; the Philadelphia Phillies from November 21, 1996 to September 30, 1998; the Pittsburgh Pirates from February 16, 1999 to April 5, 2000; and the Mexican League from 2000 to 2002. The WCJ found that applicant's claim is barred by section 3600.5, subdivision (d), and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's initial denial based on section 3600.5(d) was premature and granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the entire record, deferring final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9145976 · 2022-10-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Despite an extensive discussion of Item 3C of the USF&G policy in the Petition for Reconsideration, the arbitrator did not attempt to analyze whether the language of 3C includes or excludes California. While the arbitrator is correct that "most insurance policies have conditions for coverage," it is essential to analyze the exact words of the particular policy at issue. As mentioned above, the extension of coverage to other states found in Part Three of the standard policy provides that workers' compensation coverage is provided for other states listed in 3C. Thus, before proceeding with further analysis, the arbitrator should determine whether California

  The arbitrator did not provide an adequate basis for concluding there was no coverage under the USF&G policy for out-of-state injuries, so the issue was deferred back to the arbitrator for further explanation.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9145976 · 2026-08-03 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Kemper Life Assurance Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 125, 148; Searle v. Allstate Life Ins. Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 425, 437-438.) However, “once an insured has made this showing, the burden is on the insurer to prove the claim is specifically excluded.” (Aydin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1188, citing Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 395, 406; Searle, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 437-438; Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 865, 880.) Here, the Petition does not appear to contest the WCA’s finding that “[t]he Declaration Page of the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance policy, issued to The Schaumburg Flyers for the year 2001, indicates in item 3(a) that the policy ‘covers All States’ but that the policy does not cover certain expressed identified states. California is not an expressly-excluded and identified state and thus, California is a covered state.” (Findings #7.) Petitioner argues instead that applicant’s claim is specifically excluded under Part 3(A)(4) of the policy based on a lack of evidence of timely notice, and that the WCA failed to adequately explain his decision. However, under the Supreme Court’s holding in Aydin, supra, petitioner carries the burden of proof on this issue.

  Petitioner failed to meet burden of proof to show lack of timely notice and prejudice required to exclude coverage under the policy.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9145976 · 2025-04-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5I now rely upon Board Rules and Regulations most commonly entitled "Orders After Filing a Petition for Reconsideration." I am persuaded by the Petition for Reconsideration argument by the Guardians that my " Supplemental Findings and Order" is erroneous. I recommend that the Supplemental Order be amended and modified. I confess that in recognizing the word "You" in the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company policy, I misapplied a condition in the policy as applicable to the Applicant rather than the Schaumberg Flyers. The language found in Part 3, A2 of the policy can be interpreted only in a fashion to reflect the mutual intention of the parties and those parties would be the Schaumberg Flyers and the insurance company. The "You" in the policy can be read, by the plain meaning of the contract, to apply to the Schaumberg Flyers beginning employment in the State of California and they were signatory and a party to the policy and insurance contract.

  The Arbitrator found that the United States Fidelity and Guarantee Insurance policy covered the Applicant in California because the employment contract was made in California, activating the policy's coverage, and the policy did not require the Applicant to begin employment in California.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9095459 · 2023-12-11 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldeferred

  Determinative passage · p.7For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge on September 19, 2023 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge on September 19, 2023 is GRANTED.

  The Appeals Board granted both applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration and deferred the final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.

  Official decision · page 7 →

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.

• UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY
• United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance
• United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company
• UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTEE

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.