 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rymer v. Hagler6/27/1989
re the payment of compensation," appellant has pointed to no authority holding coverage can be found only through an existing and effective contract of insurance and not by operation of law. Nor has appellant espoused any public policy which would be served by adopting such a rule.
Appellant cites Weiser v. Industrial Acc. Commission (1916) 172 Cal. 538 [157 P. 593] and Scott v. Industrial Acc. Com., supra, 46 Cal. 2d 76 to support his novel contention. Neither case assists appellant. In Weiser, the court found liability coverage under an existing policy. In Scott, the court did state that without "coverage" an injured employee could bring a civil action under section 3706. However, the court did not discuss whether or not "coverage" could exist by operation of law.
The only reported case on the issue of coverage by estoppel is one out of this court and, although not directly on point, is instructive on this issue. In Ogden v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 786 [200 Cal. Rptr. 406], the dispute at the WCAB proceeding was whether or not the employer 's compensation policy had been cancelled prior to the employee 's injury. The worker's compensation judge had found that the insurance carrier was estopped from denying coverage. The WCAB refused to affirm the finding and instead found the policy had been cancelled. It also found the employer had failed to prove estoppel. This court found the WCAB decision was not supported by the requisite findings and remanded the case for further findings. However, in dicta, this court commented that there was ample evidence to find coverage by estoppel. Thus, this court has recognized, by implication, coverage by estoppel as a legitimate method by which an employer may establish compliance with the Act.
The above case also illustrates why appellant's contention is not consistent with the policies underlying the Act. The intent of the Act is to provide compensation for employees who are injured in work-related actions and to eliminate lengthy court actions. (See Saala v. McFarland (1965) 63 Cal. 2d 124, 130 [45 Cal. Rptr. 144, 403 P.2d 400]; Santiago v. Employee Benefits Services, supra, 168 Cal. App. 3d at p. 901.) If a rule were adopted eliminating coverage by operation of law as a source of compensation, the purposes of the Act would be frustrated. Technical barriers to coverage caused by administrative or clerical errors would serve to deny employees a quick and efficient forum for seeking compensation and eliminate the exclusivity feature so important to the purposes of the Act. " he courts must be vigilant to preserve the spirit of the act and to prevent a distortion of its purposes." (Eckis v. Sea World Corp. (1976) 64 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7 [134 Cal. Rptr. 183].)
III.
Are There Any Misrepresentations by Respondent That Would Require Reversal?
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded costs on appeal.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded costs on appeal.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|