Great Divide 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

• Santa Ana 11
• Anaheim 6
• Oakland 6
• San Diego 2
• San Francisco 2
• Long Beach 1
• Oxnard 1
• Pomona 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.

• 14 for the applicant
• 9 for the defense
• 7 returned for more record

Counted over 27 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.

• ADJ10902369 · 2026-05-15 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9Here, the record is deficient regarding the method of calculating permanent disability considering Vigil. To rebut the CVC, an employee must present evidence explaining what impact their impairments have had upon their ADLs. Where the medical evidence demonstrates that there is effectively an absence of overlap in the impacted ADLs, or an amplified overall functional impact, the employee has rebutted the CVC. Here, PQME Dr. Watkin opined that adding applicant's impairments was appropriate because he cannot squat to spare his low back due to lower extremity joint injuries, and he cannot bend to spare his lower extremity joints due to his low back condition.

  The Appeals Board found the record deficient regarding the method of calculating permanent disability under Vigil, requiring further development of the record for PQME Dr. Watkins to conduct a complete overlap analysis of applicant's ADLs to determine whether impairments should be added or combined.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ20181505 · 2026-05-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, we are concerned that the WCJ did not clearly make a finding as to whether applicant was hired in California or, perhaps more precisely, where applicant was located at the time the Bears reached out to him to offer him employment. As a result, further study of the record and the caselaw surrounding personal jurisdiction is necessary to determine whether the WCJ's decision can be effectively evaluated in the absence of such a finding, or whether we must return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine that factual question prior to rendering a judgement on whether there is personal jurisdiction over the Bears in California for purposes of this claim.

  The WCJ did not clearly find whether applicant was hired in California or where the Bears reached out to him, which is necessary to evaluate personal jurisdiction; further proceedings are needed to determine this factual question.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14852118 · 2025-07-14 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5We will defer the issue of permanent disability so that the evidentiary record can be further developed on the issue of apportionment. We note that this case was initially presented as a specific injury occurring on November 15, 2019. Qualified medical evaluator David S. Kim, M.D. opined that 15% of applicant's permanent impairment was attributable to factors other than the industrial injury. (December 20, 2022 report at p. 9.) Primary treating physician Dr. Etemad found that 10% of applicant's impairment was due to non-industrial factors. (June 17, 2022 report at p. 8.) Subsequently, Dr. Kim opined that applicant's injury was a cumulative trauma. However, Dr.

  The permanent disability issue was deferred for further development due to unclear apportionment analysis by medical evaluators.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9095473 · 2025-01-22 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4On March 14, 2024, the WCJ issued her Findings of Fact, determining in relevant part that applicant and the Green Bay Packers formed a contract of hire within California's territorial jurisdiction, thus conferring California subject matter jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to sections 3600.5 and 5305. (Findings of Fact No. 2.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision observed that applicant had testified credibly at trial to that he was physically present in California when he

  The WCJ found applicant credible that he accepted the Green Bay Packers' offer while physically in California, conferring California jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ7217330 · 2024-09-10 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the February 21, 2019 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concluded that although applicant had been hired in California, the WCAB nevertheless lacked jurisdiction over his claim due to the presence of a forum selection clause in his contract, requiring him to bring his workers' compensation claim in Wisconsin instead of California. Applicant contests this determination, arguing that the fact of his hire in California renders the forum selection clause unenforceable and makes California an appropriate forum for his claim.

  The WCAB held that if the applicant was hired in California, the forum selection clause in his contract is unenforceable and does not bar WCAB jurisdiction. The WCJ did not make a finding on the hire location, so the case was remanded for that factual determination.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8124831 · 2024-08-06 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendants Great Divide Insurance Company through Berkley Entertainment, on behalf of the Indianapolis Colts (Indianapolis Colts), and Ace American Insurance Company on behalf of the Jacksonville Jaguars (Jacksonville Jaguars) each seek reconsideration of the May 16, 2024 Opinion on Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR), wherein a panel of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from April 15, 2005 to December 1, 2010 by the Indianapolis Colts and the Jacksonville Jaguars claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head, brain, jaw, neck, teeth, back, psyche, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hips, bilateral legs, bilateral arms, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral feet, bilateral wrists, bilateral elbows, bilateral hands, fingers, toes, and sleep disturbance. We found, in relevant part, that the WCAB has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury because applicant was hired in California.

  The WCAB found that the applicant was hired in California, conferring subject matter jurisdiction, and denied the petitions challenging this finding.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9095473 · 2024-05-31 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our preliminary review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration to issue an order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800 that the proceedings and testimony from the February 13, 2024 trial in this matter be transcribed and promptly filed in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS), with simultaneous notice of the filing to all active parties and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Office of the Commissioners. Thereafter, the parties shall have twenty days from receipt of the trial transcript, plus any applicable days for mailing, in which to file supplemental pleadings in EAMS.

  The WCJ denied transcript requests as no material inaccuracies in the summary were shown; the WCAB found transcript warranted due to importance of testimony and prior reliance on partial transcripts, granting reconsideration to order transcript and allow supplemental pleadings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10110126 · 2024-05-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.16as a professional athlete, Occupational Group No. 590, by the Atlanta Falcons, New Orleans Saints, Pittsburgh Steelers, the Los Angeles Rams, and the St. Louis Rams, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to head, neck, shoulders, hands, wrists, fingers, elbows, back, hips, knees, ankles, feet, toes, neurological, internal, sleep, psyche, and chronic pain. 2. At the time of the claimed injury, the workers' compensation carriers for the various employers were: (1) Great Divide Insurance, administered by Berkley Entertainment for the Atlanta Falcons; (2) Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation for the New Orleans Saints; (3) State Workers Insurance Fund for the Pittsburgh Steelers; (4) California Insurance Guarantee Association for Legion Insurance, in liquidation for the Los Angeles Rams; (5) Fairmont by Zenith for the St. Louis Rams; and, (6) Travelers Insurance also for the St. Louis Rams. 3. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury. 4. The conferral of jurisdiction arising out of applicant's California contract of hire precludes the enforcement of choice of law/forum selection clauses. 5. The issue of whether compensation is barred by Labor Code section 5405 is deferred.

  The issue of whether compensation is barred by section 5405 is deferred pending further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 16 →
• ADJ8124831 · 2024-05-16 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answers, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the November 18, 2019 F&O and substitute new findings that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury and that all other issues are deferred. We will then return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ.

  The WCAB found that the applicant formed a valid oral contract of hire in California by accepting employment offers while physically present in California, thus conferring subject matter jurisdiction under California law.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12766196 · 2024-03-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In addition to the WCJ's well-reasoned Report, we observe the following. Defendant St. Louis Rams contend the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3600.5(c) because applicant had less than 20 percent of his duty days with the Rams. (Rams' Petition, dated January 19, 2023, at p. 6:11.) However, the WCJ found subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury pursuant to section 3600.5(a) when the Rams entered an oral contract with applicant in California. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) The WCJ's Report observes:

  The WCJ found and the panel adopted that the applicant entered into oral contracts of hire with the Rams and Seahawks in California, conferring subject matter jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(a).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15429257 · 2023-10-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 7, 2023 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that California does not have personal jurisdiction over the Cincinnati Bengals or the Kansas City Chiefs, and that applicant's contracts with both teams contained valid contractual choice of law or choice of forum clauses.

  The Board found that the WCJ's credibility findings and contract formation analysis required further review, and that the issues of personal jurisdiction and contractual clauses warranted reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15657256 · 2023-09-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8WHETHER THERE IS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS CLAIM Labor Code § 5305 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

  The WCJ found the applicant credible and that the contract of hire was made in California, supporting reasonable exercise of jurisdiction under Labor Code 5305. The defendants' federal preemption argument was not raised timely and is rejected.

  Official decision · page 8 →

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.

• GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
• Great Divide Insurance Company
• GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY (CARE OF) BERKLEY ENTERTAINMENT INSURANCE
• GREAT DIVIDE INUSRANCE COMPANY
• GREAT DIVIDE 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.