Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Miceli: CIGA Liability After Reversal of the Other-Insurance Ruling

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 29, 2026

Miceli explains the procedural consequences of appellate reversal in a CIGA coverage dispute involving a general employer, special employer, and potentially overlapping policies.

Insolvency shifted attention to other insurance

The staffing employer’s carrier became insolvent, bringing CIGA into the claim. The dispute was whether the special employer’s separate policy was other insurance available to the worker.

The appellate decision reversed the Board

The Court of Appeal concluded the special-employer policy was not other insurance on the record, and the Supreme Court later decertified that opinion from publication. The Board acknowledged its own earlier en banc ruling was reversed and no longer precedent.

A blanket stay could not replace case-specific adjudication

The Board rescinded the consolidation and stay covering hundreds of matters. Each claim required analysis of its own employment arrangements, policy language, and parties’ intent.

Disposition

CIGA remained a party with potential liability, the dismissal request and renewed consolidation were denied, and the case returned for individual proceedings.

Key takeaways

• Identify every potentially applicable policy.
• Distinguish precedential effect from law of the particular case.
• Build the employment and contracting record claim by claim.
• Do not infer CIGA dismissal from a generalized coverage theory.