Caplan v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.

Opinion

HANSON (Thaxton), J.

Appellant Richard Caplan (Plaintiff) filed an action in the superior court naming as defendant Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (Fireman’s Fund), respondent herein. Plaintiff was injured in the course and scope of his employment with Columbia Pictures whose workers’ compensation carrier was Fireman’s Fund. In his complaint, Plaintiff prays for general damages, punitive damages in the sum of $5 million and attorney fees for the alleged “wrongful refusal to pay insurance benefits,” “bad faith,” violation of Insurance Code section 790.03, subdivision (h), and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress all essentially based upon an alleged unreasonable delay in paying workers’ compensation benefits, including failure to notify him of an available rehabilitation program.

The superior court (Hon. Charles E. Jones, Judge Presiding) granted defendant Fireman’s Fund’s motion to dismiss concluding that exclusive jurisdiction over the claims pursued by plaintiff rests with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The sole issue on appeal is whether or not the claims alleged by Plaintiff against Fireman’s Fund rests exclusively within the jurisdiction of the WCAB.

Plaintiff’s reliance on

Unruh

v.

Truck Insurance Exchange

(1972) 7 Cal.3d 616 [102 Cal.Rptr. 815, 498 P.2d 1063] is grossly misplaced. The

[148]

conduct complained of in the instant case is markedly distinguishable from that in

Unruh.

Here, the conduct complained of falls a country mile short of the type of “outrageous and extreme” conduct contemplated by

Unruh.

We flat-out hold that the trial court correctly dismissed the instant action. It is unnecessary to belabor the point or rehash the matter in view of the clear statutory mandate (see Lab. Code, §§ 3600, 3601, 5300 and 5814) as construed ad nauseam and ad infinitum by a spate of Court of Appeal decisions, many of which petitions for hearing have been denied by the state Supreme Court. (See