Protective Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE1
• Jurisdiction / venue1

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 2
• Marina del Rey 1
• Sacramento 1
• Van Nuys 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.

• 4 for the defense
• 1 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 5 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this insurance carrier is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ13783750 · 2025-08-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 14, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that while employed as a truck driver for defendant during the period from September 3, 2019 through October 19, 2020 (ADJ13783750), applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the head, cervical spine, back, arm, and knees. The WCJ also found a separate July 25, 2020 (ADJ16743471) injury AOE/COE to the head, cervical and lumbar spine, knees, and legs. The WCJ found no injury AOE/COE for applicant's internal claims of diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

  The WCJ's findings on internal claims were final but lacked adequate record development and due process; the Appeals Board has authority to develop the record and provide due process, so the issue is deferred for further development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13967400 · 2022-10-17 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the January 26, 2022 Order Denying Petitions to Quash and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions (Order). Therein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denied eight petitions filed by defendant seeking to quash various subpoenas duces tecum directed to third-parties, because the defendant failed to file meet and confer declarations in support of its petitions as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(c). The Order further noticed the court's intention to impose monetary sanctions on defendant. Defendant contends the subpoenas should be quashed because they are duplicative, and because defendant received inadequate notice of the subpoenas due to defective service. (Petition for Removal, dated February 28, 2022, at 5:11.)

  The WCJ denied the petitions for failure to attach meet and confer declarations as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(c), but the Appeals Board found the WCJ's denial improper and granted removal to allow further proceedings and clarification of the applicable rules.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16556325 · 2023-09-06 · Van Nuys 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13595177 · 2022-08-03 · Santa Ana 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11682579 · 2021-08-31 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a Petition for Reconsideration from the May 25, 2021 Order Dismissing Case (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The Order was issued following an April 26, 2021 Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case (NIT) due to lack of prosecution to which there was no objection. In the Petition for Reconsideration, applicant asserts his intention to now prosecute his claim. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the petition as premature.

  The petition was dismissed as premature because the applicant must file an opening document at the trial level to reinitiate the claim after dismissal without prejudice, and the petition did not suffice to reinitiate the claim at the appellate level.

  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.

• PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
• PROTECTIVE INSURANCE INDIANAPOLIS
• PROTECTIVE INSURANCE

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.