California WCABInsurance carrier

Truck Insurance Exchange

Truck Insurance Exchange is named as an insurance carrier in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Discrimination under Labor Code §132a (1) and Liens (1). Defense most often ran through Law Offices of Scott C. Stratman (1). The employer appearing most often is A-1 Metal Products, INC. (1). The office that heard the most of them is Anaheim.

Decisions: 8
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 8

What they litigate

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

Who defends them

14 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Whose claims they run

A-1 Metal Products, INC.1
L.a. Country Club1
Magic Price Clothing1
Nagatoshi Produce USA, INC.1
Pete Fer & Son Plumbing1
Premier Landscaping1
Socal MacHine, INC.1
Supreme Glass Company1
The Big Off Price1
Tikal, INC.1

Where they appear

Anaheim 1
Los Angeles 1
Marina del Rey 1
Oakland 1
Riverside 1
San Diego 1
San Francisco 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 applicant
3 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ17547374 · 2025-01-24 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued and served by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on October 23, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that the equitable hourly reimbursement rate for in-home health care (HHC) to the applicant for his spouse's services are $17.53 when the wife is performing regular caregiver duties such as laundry, meal preparation, changing sheets, and assisting applicant in dressing and bathing, and $53.55 when the wife is performing duties equivalent to nursing such as medication dispensing, bandage changing or wound care, assisting with therapy, catheterization, and the bowel program. The WCJ awarded applicant's attorney a reasonable attorney fee of 12% from the retroactive benefits received for the period February 4, 2024, to the date of the Award.
The WCJ's determination of two different reimbursement rates for spouse's home health care services was reconsidered and the petition for reconsideration was granted to allow further review of the proper rate.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10380421 · 2024-02-29 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred
Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, defendant has not met its burden of proving that the employee knew or should have known his disability was caused by his employment. (Johnson, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 471.) We will therefore rescind the F&O and substitute new findings deferring the issue of the date of injury per section 5412. Moreover, given our conclusion that applicant did not possess the knowledge required under section 5412 prior to July 28, 2017, and because applicant commenced proceedings for the collection of benefits less than one year later on November 3, 2017, we will find that compensation is not barred by section 5405. Because the underlying decision did not reach the issue of injury arising out of and in the course of employment, we will defer the issue. Finally, given that no party has challenged the WCJ's determinations regarding the claimed specific dates of injury, we will find that applicant did not sustain a specific injury to his low back on January 30, 2016 or on February 1, 2016.
The issue of injury arising out of and in the course of employment is deferred as it was not reached in the underlying decision.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ number not stated · 2026-01-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Lien claimants also seek reconsideration of the Order of Consolidation, Designation of Master File, and Notice of Hearing (Consolidation Order) issued by Presiding WCJ Jeffrey Marrone (PWCJ Marrone) on October 24, 2025. The Consolidation Order ordered consolidation and the stay of all lien claimants' liens pursuant to Rule 10396 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10396) of several hundred existing cases1 for purposes of discovery based upon "good cause shown, and pursuant to delegated authority from the Chief Judge of the Division of Workers' Compensation..." (Consolidation Order.) Good cause was found by PCWJ Marrone in "the complexity of the claims and issues" set forth in the Petition for Consolidation and Stay of Liens (Consolidation Petition) filed by defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), as well as based on review of multiple petitions for joinder and lien claimants' objections.
The Appeals Board found the consolidation order was not a final order and dismissed the petition for reconsideration accordingly.
ADJ10067067 · 2021-12-01 · Marina del Rey 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if a final adverse decision issued.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ640631 · 2021-05-21 · San Francisco District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6After analyzing the record in view of applicable authority, I concluded that lien claimant exercised a significant level of responsibility and care in connection with its representation of the injured worker, as evidenced by the timeliness of its efforts after being retained leading to defendants' acceptance of the two claims, as well as by the caution it exercised in order to protect applicant's interests by refusing to release his file or potentially leave him without formal legal representation in the absence of a fully executed substitution or dismissal of attorneys. Equally importantly, I found that the entire value of the 2019 C&R lay in applicant relinquishing his right to future medical care, since the Appeals Board no longer had jurisdiction to award any other benefits by then. That right had been secured for Mr.
The lien claimant was entitled to one-third of all fees awarded over the life of the cases based on its significant responsibility and care during representation, despite being dismissed before the final settlement.
Official decision · page 6 →

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.

TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE
TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE COMPANY
Truck Insurance Exchange

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.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Truck Insurance Exchange

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

3 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Decisions

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

ADJ17547374 · 2025-01-24 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued and served by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on October 23, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that the equitable hourly reimbursement rate for in-home health care (HHC) to the applicant for his spouse's services are $17.53 when the wife is performing regular caregiver duties such as laundry, meal preparation, changing sheets, and assisting applicant in dressing and bathing, and $53.55 when the wife is performing duties equivalent to nursing such as medication dispensing, bandage changing or wound care, assisting with therapy, catheterization, and the bowel program. The WCJ awarded applicant's attorney a reasonable attorney fee of 12% from the retroactive benefits received for the period February 4, 2024, to the date of the Award.

The WCJ's determination of two different reimbursement rates for spouse's home health care services was reconsidered and the petition for reconsideration was granted to allow further review of the proper rate.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10380421 · 2024-02-29 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, defendant has not met its burden of proving that the employee knew or should have known his disability was caused by his employment. (Johnson, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 471.) We will therefore rescind the F&O and substitute new findings deferring the issue of the date of injury per section 5412. Moreover, given our conclusion that applicant did not possess the knowledge required under section 5412 prior to July 28, 2017, and because applicant commenced proceedings for the collection of benefits less than one year later on November 3, 2017, we will find that compensation is not barred by section 5405. Because the underlying decision did not reach the issue of injury arising out of and in the course of employment, we will defer the issue. Finally, given that no party has challenged the WCJ's determinations regarding the claimed specific dates of injury, we will find that applicant did not sustain a specific injury to his low back on January 30, 2016 or on February 1, 2016.

The issue of injury arising out of and in the course of employment is deferred as it was not reached in the underlying decision.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ number not stated · 2026-01-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Lien claimants also seek reconsideration of the Order of Consolidation, Designation of Master File, and Notice of Hearing (Consolidation Order) issued by Presiding WCJ Jeffrey Marrone (PWCJ Marrone) on October 24, 2025. The Consolidation Order ordered consolidation and the stay of all lien claimants' liens pursuant to Rule 10396 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10396) of several hundred existing cases1 for purposes of discovery based upon "good cause shown, and pursuant to delegated authority from the Chief Judge of the Division of Workers' Compensation..." (Consolidation Order.) Good cause was found by PCWJ Marrone in "the complexity of the claims and issues" set forth in the Petition for Consolidation and Stay of Liens (Consolidation Petition) filed by defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), as well as based on review of multiple petitions for joinder and lien claimants' objections.

The Appeals Board found the consolidation order was not a final order and dismissed the petition for reconsideration accordingly.

ADJ10067067 · 2021-12-01 · Marina del Rey 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if a final adverse decision issued.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ640631 · 2021-05-21 · San Francisco District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6After analyzing the record in view of applicable authority, I concluded that lien claimant exercised a significant level of responsibility and care in connection with its representation of the injured worker, as evidenced by the timeliness of its efforts after being retained leading to defendants' acceptance of the two claims, as well as by the caution it exercised in order to protect applicant's interests by refusing to release his file or potentially leave him without formal legal representation in the absence of a fully executed substitution or dismissal of attorneys. Equally importantly, I found that the entire value of the 2019 C&R lay in applicant relinquishing his right to future medical care, since the Appeals Board no longer had jurisdiction to award any other benefits by then. That right had been secured for Mr.

The lien claimant was entitled to one-third of all fees awarded over the life of the cases based on its significant responsibility and care during representation, despite being dismissed before the final settlement.

Official decision · page 6 →