By Robert G. Rassp, author of The Lawyer’s Guide to the AMA Guides and California Workers’ Compensation (LexisNexis) Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are...
Oakland, CA – Private self-insured claim volume in the California workers' compensation system fell 9.5% in 2023, producing the biggest year-to-year decline in private self-insured claim frequency...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No matter the source of your media consumption, it seems that the topic...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Who doesn’t agree with the fact that “[w]e should not interpret or apply statutory language...
When do the exclusivity provisions of Labor Code section 3600 permit an action for law at damages? By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’...
A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a California business liability insurer was not required to defend its insured—a pornography studio—in a suit filed against it by actors who contended, inter alia, that the insured defendant corporation had not taken adequate steps to protect its performers and prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and HIV during pornographic shoots. Construing the terms of the insurance policies, the panel noted that Exclusion 4 provided that coverage under the Employer’s Liability portion of the policy did not extend to “any obligation imposed by a workers’ compensation … law.” Exclusion 5 provided that coverage did not extend to “damages or bodily injury intentionally caused or aggravated by” the insured. The panel held that the acts and injuries alleged by the defendant insurer and the performers fell within the compensation bargain because the gravamen of each was that the employer did not maintain a safe workplace, and the remedy for such workplace-safety claims was exclusively covered by California’s workers' compensation laws.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Seneca Ins. Co. v. Cybernet Entm't, LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2565 (9th Cir., January 25, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 104.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law