What the panel ordered
Findings and Order issued on April 10, 2026, rescinded and substituted with new Findings and Order finding coverage for AMPCO under the Ace American Insurance policy.p. 6
Petition for Reconsideration granted to study factual and legal issues regarding insurance coverage; prior Findings and Order rescinded and replaced with new Findings and Order finding coverage for AMPCO.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold July 27, 2026, March 15, 2022, June 29, 2021.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The Board found that leased coverage existed between BBSI and AMPCO under the employee leasing agreement, making AMPCO covered by the Ace American Insurance policy despite the lack of formal hiring, based on Schedule 31 provisions and Labor Code section 3602(d).
From the decision · page 6Plan, effective September 1, 2026, p. 11.) “[S]uch policy may also provide workers’ compensation benefits for the client’s employees.” (Ibid.) Here, the WCA erred in finding no coverage pursuant to the endorsement because the WCA found that applicant was not hired pursuant to the BBSI contract, which in most other cases contained a number of restrictions on employment. However, the WCA overlooked provision 6 in schedule 31, which found all deemed employees of a licensed contractor to be covered, notwithstanding any other provision of the agreement. The parties clearly understood that sometimes, such as the case here, a general contractor may become legally liable as an employer, even when there is no formal hiring of the individual.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
AMPCO and BBSI entered into an employee leasing agreement with provisions covering deemed employees of licensed contractors.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This agreement established that AMPCO was covered by the Ace American Insurance policy despite no formal hiring of the injured workers by BBSI.
From the decision · page 6Plan, effective September 1, 2026, p. 11.) “[S]uch policy may also provide workers’ compensation benefits for the client’s employees.” (Ibid.) Here, the WCA erred in finding no coverage pursuant to the endorsement because the WCA found that applicant was not hired pursuant to the BBSI contract, which in most other cases contained a number of restrictions on employment. However, the WCA overlooked provision 6 in schedule 31, which found all deemed employees of a licensed contractor to be covered, notwithstanding any other provision of the agreement. The parties clearly understood that sometimes, such as the case here, a general contractor may become legally liable as an employer, even when there is no formal hiring of the individual.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3602(d)
Labor Code section 3602(d)
The Board applied this statute to determine that both employers in an employee leasing agreement are considered to have secured payment of compensation, making AMPCO covered under the insurance policy.
From the decision · page 6Plan, effective September 1, 2026, p. 11.) “[S]uch policy may also provide workers’ compensation benefits for the client’s employees.” (Ibid.) Here, the WCA erred in finding no coverage pursuant to the endorsement because the WCA found that applicant was not hired pursuant to the BBSI contract, which in most other cases contained a number of restrictions on employment. However, the WCA overlooked provision 6 in schedule 31, which found all deemed employees of a licensed contractor to be covered, notwithstanding any other provision of the agreement. The parties clearly understood that sometimes, such as the case here, a general contractor may become legally liable as an employer, even when there is no formal hiring of the individual.
10 Cal. Code Regs., § 2353.1
10 Cal. Code Regs., § 2353.1
The Board applied this regulation regarding insurance policies for employers engaged in employee leasing arrangements to support coverage under the Ace American Insurance policy.
From the decision · page 6Plan, effective September 1, 2026, p. 11.) “[S]uch policy may also provide workers’ compensation benefits for the client’s employees.” (Ibid.) Here, the WCA erred in finding no coverage pursuant to the endorsement because the WCA found that applicant was not hired pursuant to the BBSI contract, which in most other cases contained a number of restrictions on employment. However, the WCA overlooked provision 6 in schedule 31, which found all deemed employees of a licensed contractor to be covered, notwithstanding any other provision of the agreement. The parties clearly understood that sometimes, such as the case here, a general contractor may become legally liable as an employer, even when there is no formal hiring of the individual.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.