Fremont Compensation Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Anaheim 5
• Santa Ana 2
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Oakland and Sacramento 1
• Riverside 1
• San Diego 1
• Stockton 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.

• 8 for the applicant
• 8 for the defense

Counted over 16 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.

• ADJ1022470 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the decisions in ADJ3880940 and ADJ4230890, and substitute new decisions that find that CIGA and Desert have joint and several liability and order that Desert is to administer applicant's further medical treatment, and defer the issue of new and further disability in ADJ4230890. We make no other changes to any of the other decisions.

  The Board deferred the issue of new and further disability because the record was inadequate to determine whether the applicant sustained new and further disability and whether a petition to reopen was filed, and CIGA waived the issue by not raising it earlier.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ9085187 · 2025-05-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7"The purpose of section 5412 was to prevent a premature commencement of the statute of limitations, so that it would not expire before the employee was reasonably aware of his or her injury." (Butler, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d 327, 341.) That is, the employee must understand that he has sustained an injury resulting in disability for there to be corresponding knowledge that the disability is work-related. Defendant's contention that we should rely on Dr. Kim's assessment in 2019 of the existence of permanent disability in 1969 attempts to substitute a retroactive medical opinion approximately 50 years after the fact in place of applicant's contemporaneous understanding he had sustained an injury resulting in temporary or permanent disability. While applicant may have understood that he had sustained injuries causing pain during the course of his professional football career, the record does not establish the existence of contemporaneous temporary or permanent disability. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that applicant had the disability in 1969 necessary for the attachment of a date of injury under section 5412.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant did not have knowledge of a compensable disability until 2015, so the statute of limitations did not bar the claim, and the date of injury was set at February 13, 2015.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10172107 · 2024-07-15 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of April 25, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed by the Zoological Society of San Diego during a cumulative period ending January 1, 1997, applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of myeloma. It was found that the sole carrier insuring the employer during the Labor Code section 5500.5 liability period was Fremont Insurance Company. On July 2, 2003, Fremont went into liquidation, and CIGA took over its California claims. CIGA is an entity created by statute in 1969 to create a fund from which insureds can seek recourse if their insurer becomes insolvent. CIGA is not an insurance company, but is required to pay statutorily defined covered claims. (Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 548, 556-557 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 1661].) In the instant case, it was found that CIGA was solely liable for any benefits due to the applicant as a result of the industrial injury.

  The WCJ's finding that the period of injurious exposure was from January 1, 1996 to January 1, 1997 was supported by credible testimony of the applicant, a co-employee's declaration, and medical expert opinions, which the WCAB adopted and affirmed on reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2754339 · 2023-02-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Defendant, CIGA, by and through their attorneys of record, has filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Findings and Order of 14 December 2022. In it Petitioner argues that the undersigned erred in finding (in part) for the lien claimant, DR KONSTAT. Specifically, they argue that the lien should be denied because the conclusions of DR. KONSTAT were not incorporated into the report of the primary treating physician. They also argue that the lien claimant failed to establish that the psychological and psychiatric treatment was shown to be reasonable and necessary. They also argue that the findings of reasonableness by the prior judge in the case-in- chief do not have a preclusive effect. Finally, they argue that no party requested a medical-legal report from her.

  The lien claimant's reports were more persuasive and the treatment was found reasonable and necessary; the defendant's argument that the reports were not incorporated into the primary treating physician's report was rejected as no exclusionary rule applies; prior findings have preclusive effect in the lien trial; the second medical-legal report was requested by applicant's attorney.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9069066 · 2022-08-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeCumulative traumaapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact of January 27, 2022 wherein it was found that while employed as a professional gridiron football player applicant sustained two separate cumulative injuries. The WCJ found "The first cumulative trauma injury is for the period June 15, 1975 through November 10, 1979 while applicant was employed by the [Los Angeles] Rams and the second cumulative trauma injury is for the period April 29, 1983 through the 1984 season while applicant was employed by the Washington Federals and the Houston Gamblers." The only issue for adjudication at trial was whether applicant sustained one or two periods of cumulative injury. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of August 16, 2021 trial at p. 2.)

  Both reporting physicians opined that applicant sustained two separate cumulative injuries, and there was no medical evidence to rebut these uncontroverted opinions. The WCJ's factual findings on this issue were upheld.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• 2005-sp1 · 2005-02-10AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.419 fall was caused by his nonindustrial seizure disorder, but the injury was the striking of his body

  The WCAB held that the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment because the injury was caused by striking the body against objects at work, despite the fall being caused by a nonindustrial seizure disorder.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• 2004-eb3 · 2004-07-27Penalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.28 Based on our review of the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude that section 1063.1(c)(8),

  The Appeals Board en banc concluded that the amended Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(8), effective January 1, 2004, excludes CIGA's liability for section 5814 penalties for unreasonable delay by the insolvent insurer Fremont for awards issued on or after that date.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• 2003-eb2 · 2003-05-27 · Oakland and Sacramento District OfficesApportionmentmixed

  Determinative passage · p.24 Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) and another solvent carrier or carriers, CIGA will be

  The Board held that CIGA is relieved of liability when there is other insurance available, except where there is a prior approved stipulation or decision apportioning liability. The Board denied CIGA's petition to be dismissed and required apportionment of liability between CIGA and Golden Eagle.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• 2002spd-1 · 2002-07-10Jurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.120 judge (WCJ) correctly dismissed the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) as a party

  The WCJ dismissed CIGA prematurely before determining the date of injury or period of injurious exposure, which are threshold issues that must be decided before dismissing CIGA. The Board rescinded the dismissal orders and returned the matters for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1504028 · 2025-10-09 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as there is presently no order or decision of the WCJ as to the issue raised by lien claimant, and thus, the issue is not ripe for adjudication. Upon return the parties may raise any objections to any rulings made at trial regarding witness testimony and may thereafter seek appropriate relief if they are aggrieved.

  The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because there was no order or decision from the WCJ on the issue raised, making it not ripe for adjudication.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ4211152 · 2022-08-22 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration are DISMISSED.

  The March 28, 2022 petition failed to allege aggrievement; the June 23, 2022 petition was moot due to the amended award, and was also illegible and skeletal.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13362834 · 2022-03-10 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.

  Official decision · page 1 →

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.

• Fremont Compensation Insurance Company
• FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY
• FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY
• FREMONT INDEMNITY
• FREMONT INDEMNITY & HOME INDEMNITY
• FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE
• Fremont Compensation Insurance
• Fremont Indemnity Company
• Fremont Insurance Company
• FREMONT INDEMNITY CO.

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.