Legal Opinion

Dill v. Claims Administration Services, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 20, 1986No. D001811PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WIENER, J.

Do the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers’ compensation system preclude this action by plaintiff Paul Dill against defendant Claims Administration Services, Inc. (CAS), the independently retained claims administrator for a self-insured employer who is alleged to have intentionally failed to pay workers’ compensation benefits despite a recognition that payment of such benefits was legally mandated? The trial court answered this question by sustaining CAS’s demurrer to each of Dill’s five causes of action without leave to amend. We disagree with the trial court’s…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Hale v. MorganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Unruh v. Truck Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Baugh v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Bell v. Industrial Vangas, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Everfield v. State Compensation Insurance FundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Mottola v. R. L. Kautz & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1988
  3. Schlick v. Comco Management, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1987
  4. Hernandez v. General Adjustment BureauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
  5. Mitchell v. Scott Wetzel Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1991

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API