Filed 8/13/13 following 7/25/13 pub. order CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

STATE FARM GENE RAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Petitioner,

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al.,
Respondents. 2d Civil No. B240742
(W.C.A.B. Nos. ADJ4684775,

ADJ4381820, ADJ7684775)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT: The opinion filed herein on July 1, 2013, shall be modified as follows: On page 12, footnote 5 shall be dele ted in its entirety, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes. [There is no change in the judgment.]Filed 7/1/13 (unmodified version; pub order 7/25/13 attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

STATE FARM GENE RAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Petitioner,

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al.,
Respondents. 2d Civil No. B240742
(W.C.A.B. Nos. ADJ4684775,

ADJ4381820, ADJ7684775)

Proceeding to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals
Board. Annulled and re manded with directions. Finnegan, Marks, Theofel & Desmond, Ellen Sims Langille, for petitioner State Farm General Insurance Company. Guilford Steiner Sarvas & Carbonara, Ri chard E. Guilford; Floyd, Skeren & Kelly, James K. Lowery, for respondent California Insurance Guarantee Association. No appearance for respondent Work ers' Compensation Appeals Board.2 Labor Code section 5950 provides that any person aggrieved by a final order, decision, or award of the Wo rkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) may, within the prescribed time limit, apply to the Court of Appe al for a writ of review. Appellate review is
limited to final orders that affect a subs tantial right or liability of a party. ( Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 294, 299.) The failure of an aggrieved party to seek judicial review of a final or der of the WCAB bars later challenge to the propriety of the order or decision befo re either the WCAB or the court. ( Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4t h 1068, 1075-1076 ( Maranian ); see also Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Wo rkers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 532-535.) This petition for writ of review ch allenges the WCAB's decision allowing California Insurance Guarantee Association (C IGA) to pursue a claim for reimbursement against State Farm General Insurance Co mpany (State Farm), after the WCAB had previously rejected the clai m and CIGA had failed to timely seek judicial review. We conclude that CIGA's claim is barred by princi ples of res judicata. We annul the WCAB's decision and remand for further proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 8, 1999, and January 20, 2000 , Joanne Lutz (applicant) was injured while working as a personal assistant to Lind a McDonald, President of Roto Rooter (aka Russell Warner, Inc.). The ap plicant was on Roto Rooter's payroll at the time. During 1999 and 2000, Roto Rooter was insured for work ers' compensation by Fremont Compensation Insurance Company and Paula In surance Company, respectively. Linda
McDonald and her homeowner's insurance carrier, State Farm, were joined as additional parties to the a pplicant's claim. In February of 2002, at a mandato ry settlement conference, the parties disputed the issues of employment and which insurance carrier should be responsible for coverage of the applicant's claim, i.e., wh ether the applicant was working as a domestic employee of McDonald at the time of her inju ries such that State Farm should provide coverage for her claim, or whether she was employed by Roto Rooter.3 On March 15, 2002, in lieu of trial, the parties entered into "Joint Stipulations With Request for Award." The parties stipul ated that the applican t was employed by Roto Rooter and Linda McDonald, and "sustained injury arising ou t of and in the course of employment." Paula Insurance Company agreed to administer all benefits under the award, and under any future award. State Farm agreed to "indemnify and/or contribute 25% of all incurred benefits paid to or on behalf of applicant (inc luding, but not limited to TD [temporary disability], PD [permanent disabi lity], medical treatm ent, and vocational rehabilitation), as to injuries of 6/8/99 and 1/20/00. [¶ ] Paula Ins. reserves its right to seek contribution from Fremont Compensation Ins. Co." That same day, Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) William Care ro approved the award allocating lia bility between the parties. No party sought reconsiderati on of the award and, conseque ntly, it became final between these parties.
In June of 2002 and July of 2003, Paula Insurance Company and Fremont Insurance Company, respectively, were liquida ted. CIGA assumed administration of the claim. Since then, State Farm has been reimbur sing CIGA for 25 percent of all benefits paid to the applicant. In September of 2003, CIGA filed a pe tition for dismissal, arguing it should
be dismissed because Paula In surance Company had not prov ided workers' compensation coverage for residential or domestic empl oyees. State Farm opposed the petition, contending the evidence supported a finding of employment by Roto Rooter and coverage, and that the March 15, 2002, stipulated awar d was final and binding on CIGA. The record before us discloses no action on this petition. In February of 2008, five years later, CIGA sought to be relieved as administrator of the applicant's claim. CI GA filed a declaration of readiness with the WCAB, stating that the parties were unable to "resolve the dispute concerning employment as a domestic employee versus employment with Roto Rooter." CIGA requested resolution of the questions (1) "whether State Farm homeowner's insurance qualifies as 'other
insurance' to make the claim against CIGA a non-covered clai m per Insurance Code section4 1063.1"; and (2) whether the applicant qualif ies as a domestic employee under Labor Code section 3351, subdivision (d). On April 4, 2008, the WC J ruled that the WCAB wa s without jurisdiction to rescind or alter the March 15, 2002, stipul ated award, and that CIGA was bound by the stipulation. The WCJ reasoned: "Labor Co de section 5804 confers limited power upon the Board to rescind, alter or ame nd its Awards. That power is li mited by the statutory language as to time and as to content. Specifically, th at Section states 'that after an award has been made finding that there was employment a nd the time to petition for a rehearing or
reconsideration or review has expired . . . , the appeals boar d upon a petition to reopen shall not have the power to find that there was no employment.' This includes determination of the identity of the employer previously determ ined by the Award. [¶] Neither does the subsequent liquidation of the Paula Insurance Company and Fr emont Indemnity . . . permit CIGA to upset the final legal determination as to employment. . . . [¶] In essence, CIGA avers that it is not bound by the Award entered against the then-solvent carriers for which CIGA is now responsible to the ex tent the Insurance Code requires. [¶] No determination is
made as to the extent of CIGA's ultimate liabi lity under the March 15, 2002 Award. It is
found nevertheless that the Award binds CIGA." CIGA did not seek reconsideration of the WCJ's order before the WCAB. (Lab. Code, § 5900.) Two months later, on June 9, 2008, CIGA filed a petition for reimbursement and for a change of administrator, renewi ng its claim that it should be relieved of responsibility to pay benefits because of the presence of other insurance. (Ins. Code, § 1063.1, subd. (c)(9).) 1 CIGA argued that State Farm wa s jointly and severally liable for the benefits paid by CIGA, an d as solvent "other insurance" must re imburse CIGA in full for all temporary disability benefits, medical treatment, and medical-related expenses. CIGA requested that State Farm reimburse it $382,833, less credit for payments made by
State Farm.

1 Insurance Code section 1063.2, subdiv ision (a) limits CIGA's liability to paying for "covered claims." Insurance Co de section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(9) provides that "covered claims" do not in clude "a claim to the extent it is covered by any other insurance of a class covered by this article available to the claimant or insured."5 State Farm opposed the petition, argui ng that (1) CIGA's failure to seek reconsideration of the WCJ's decision on Ap ril 4, 2008, precluded it from relitigating its reimbursement claim (Lab. Code, § 5804); (2 ) State Farm's homeowner's insurance policy
does not constitute "other insurance" as defi ned by the Insurance C ode because its policy
was not "available to the claimant or insured" (Ins. Code, § 1063.1, subd. (c)(9)); and (3) CIGA's claims were barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. In May of 2009, CIGA filed a declar ation of readiness (presumably for its June 2008 petition), seeking dism issal as a party-defendant on the ground that "'other
solvent insurance' is availabl e" pursuant to Insurance Code section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(9). According to the pretrial conference statement, the parties proceeded to trial on issues including: (1) whethe r CIGA should be dismissed pursuant to Insurance Code section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(9 ), because "other solv ent insurance" is av ailable; (2) joint and several liability/reimbursement from Stat e Farm; (3) Insurance Code section 11590 provides that domestic workers are covere d under homeowner's insurance policy for workers' compensation; and (4) pe tition to change administrator. On June 25, 2009, the WCJ conducte d a hearing on CIGA's petition. The minutes of the hearing specify that the issue of whether there was "good cause to dismiss CIGA due to the presence of other insurance" was "raised and accepted to be heard" as part of the trial. With respect to this issue, the WCJ ruled: "The presence of other insurance in this case does not support go od cause to dismiss CIGA. [CIGA] has already been determined [to be] bound by the [Stipulated Award of March 15, 2002]; and that determination having been made on April 8th, 2008, without any appellate response, remains the law of this case, and the motion of CIGA to be dismissed is therefore denied." CIGA then sought recons ideration by the WCAB, contending that CIGA is statutorily prohibited from making payments to the applicant and must be dismissed pursuant to Insurance Code section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(9) because other solvent6 insurance is available. CIGA argued that our decisions in Weitzman and Hooten entitle it
"to shift the entire amount of joint and several liability on to the still-solvent carrier." 2 On July 28, 2009 , the WCJ recommended the WCAB deny reconsideration, reasoning that "[r]ight or wrong , the 2008 decision on jurisdicti on to rescind, alter or amend the 2002 stipulated award is the law of this case. [¶] [CIGA] seeks to distinguish the issue here presented from that presented in 2008. Ho wever, both efforts boil down to an effort to impose the liability in this cas e solely on State Farm." The WCJ explained that CIGA
"remains liable because the 2002 stipulation a nd award was a finding of employment which was not the subject of a petition for reconsid eration and was followed by a decision six years later that jurisdiction to change the terms of the 25%/75 % deal was lacking. The 2008
decision in turn becam e final." The WCJ also observed that CIGA was barred by laches from attempting to avoid the stipulated award "where five to six years elapse with the injured worker and the homeowner carrier relying upon the deal they struck." On October 15, 2009, the WCAB adopted WCJ Carero's recommendation and denied CIGA's petition for reconsideration. CIGA did not file a petition for writ of review in the Court of Appeal. In January of 2010, CIGA proceeded to trial on the applicant's claim of permanent disability, future medical trea tment, a lien claim by the Employment Development Department (EDD), and other rela ted issues. On Apri l 27, 2010, the WCJ issued his decision granting the applicant perm anent disability of 39 percent and awarding benefits against CIGA for future medical trea tment. The WCJ ordered CIGA to reimburse the EDD for disability benefits provided to the applicant. In May of 2010, CIGA sought rec onsideration of the WCJ's decision, contending that the WCJ should have found that the applicant was jointly employed by Roto
Rooter and Linda McDonald on the date of injury, and the award should have identified State Farm as jointly liable for a ll benefits due the applicant.

2 See California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 307, 320 ( Weitzman ) ["covered claims" under In s. Code section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(9), do not include claims covered by other solvent insurers in situations of joint and several liability]; CIGA v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 569, 573 ( Hooten ) [even in absence of joint and several liability, "covered claims" under section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(5) do not include claims by other insurers].)7 The WCJ recommended that reconsidera tion be granted in part to correct
certain miscalculations he had made in the amount of permanen t disability and to eliminate CIGA's obligation to reimburse the EDD. The WCJ also clarified that CIGA is the party liable for the benefits due the applicant, and th at "State Farm remain s obligated to its codefendant(s), but not to the applicant." The WCJ recommended denial of CIGA's reconsideration petition in all other respects. On January 18, 2011, th e WCAB adopted the WCJ' s recommendations in all respects and modified the WCJ's award accord ingly. The WCAB amended the award to conform to the 2002 stipulation by identifyi ng Linda McDonald as an additional employer on the date of injury. The WCAB rejected CIGA's contenti on that the award should be amended to reallocate liability for the applican t's claim to State Farm by finding it jointly and severally liable. The WC AB reasoned that CIGA's conten tions were rejected by the WCJ in his decisions of April 4, 2008, and Ju ly 13, 2009, and by th e WCAB when it denied reconsideration on September 1, 2009. Beca use CIGA did not appeal those decisions, the WCAB concluded they "are now fi nal and the law of the case."
The WCAB stated: "We re cognize that several appella te cases describe limits
of CIGA's liabilities in cases wh ere solvent insurers are 'availa ble' to provide an injured
worker with benefits within the meaning of Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9), notwithstanding that the insolv ent insurer would be liable fo r those benefits but for the insolvency. [Fn. and citations omitted

. ] However, those cases did not involve a request by
CIGA to amend an award made more than five years earlier by stipulation of all the solvent insurers. In this situation, Labor Code sec tion 5804 precludes CIGA's request to re-allocate liability by amending the 20 02 stipulated award." 3 Once again, CIGA elected not to petition for a writ of review in the Court of Appeal. On April 18, 2011, CIGA filed another de claration of readiness, renewing the issue of reimbursement. CIGA stated that "[ t]he parties require th e intervention of the WCAB to resolve the dispute betwee n CIGA and State Farm concerning

3 Labor Code section 5804 provides in pa rt: "No award of compensation shall be rescinded, altered, or amended after five year s from the date of the injury except upon a petition by a party in interest filed w ithin such five years . . . ."8 contribution/reimbursement." On June 2, 2011, the WCJ conducted a hearing on: (1) whether res judicata bars further proceedings on reimbursement; and (2) whether good cause
exists to refer the matter to ar bitration. On July 29, 2011, the WCJ denied CIGA's request
for trial of its claim for reimbursement and/or contribution. He found that the respective liabilities of the parties had previously been fi nally determined and c ould not be "relitigated by way of seeking contributio n or reimbursement." CIGA then petitioned the WCAB for rec onsideration, contending that it may proceed with its reimbursemen t claim against State Farm because (1) CIGA and State Farm are jointly and severally liable under the 2002 stipulated award; and (2) it is not precluded from seeking reimbursement by either res judi cata or Labor Code section 5804. CIGA pointed to the wording of the WCJ's April 2008 decision, stating that "[n]o determination is
made as to the extent of CIGA's ultimate lia bility under the March 15, 2002 Award." CIGA argued that it relied on this language in not appealing or se eking reconsideration earlier, believing that it mean t that Insurance Code secti on 1063.1 might still shift all liability to State Farm. CIGA argued that the issue of CIGA's right to reimbursement against State Farm was raised for the first time in CIGA's declaration of readiness filed on April 18, 2011, and the issue was not "identi cal" to the issues previously decided. On August 25, 2011, the WCJ disagreed with CIGA, concluding its reimbursement claim was not made in good faith and was not supported by the cases cited.
The WCJ stated that no determin ation as to the ultimate liability of any party was possible in
2008 because the extent of th e applicant's permanent disability was still being evaluated. The WCJ noted this did not prev ent CIGA from appealing or se eking reconsideration of the 2008 determination that it was bound by the 2002 stipulated agreement. The WCJ concluded that "[r]egardless of the seman tics employed," CIGA's renewed effort to "reallocate liability by amending the 2002 stipulat ed award" was barred by "the component of res judicata known as issue preclusion." On December 19, 2011, th e WCAB granted reconsider ation, notwithstanding its contrary decision 11 months earlier (on January 18, 2011), rulin g against CIGA on the question of whether it could pursue a reimbur sement claim under Insurance Code section9 1063.1, subdivision (c)(9). The WCAB noted that CIGA wa s not a party to the 2002 stipulation and was not seeki ng to amend the earlier 2002 award. Instead, it reasoned, CIGA was seeking to enforce its statutory right under Insura nce Code section 1063.1 to
obtain reimbursement from a solvent insurer that is "available" to provi de benefits to the applicant within the meaning of the statute. The WCAB reas oned that the 2002 stipulated award and the five-year limita tions period of Labor Code se ction 5804 were not dispositive of CIGA's petition for reimbursement. Th e applicant was jointly employed by Linda
McDonald and Roto Rooter when she was injured. "Because applicant had two employers . . . each employer and their respective insurers on those dates of injury are as a matter of law jointly and severally liable for workers' compensation benefits that are due."
The WCAB went on to reason that the 2002 stipulation did not change State Farm's joint and several liability to the applicant. "This is because agreements between employers and/or their insurers cannot diminish or eliminate an applicant's right to recover benefits from the employers and insurers that ar e jointly and severally liable for the injury. . . . When Freemont and Paula became insolvent, State Farm became 'a vailable' to applicant
as 'other insurance' under Insurance Code se ction 1063.1(c)(9) because McDonald is jointly and severally liable for applicant's injuries. [¶ ] Because State Farm appears to be 'other
insurance' that is 'ava ilable' . . . within the meaning of Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9), it appears to be responsible for the provision of workers' compensation benefits that are due because of her injuries." The WCAB concluded "[t]here has been no earlier final decision on CIGA's petition to obtain reimbursement from State Farm. Thus, there is no basis for denying the petition for reimbursement on the grounds of res judicata or collateral estoppel as concluded by the WCJ in his August 25, 2011 Report." Accordingly, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's
decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings on CIGA's petition
for reimbursement. Thereafter, State Farm pe titioned the WCAB for recons ideration. State Farm argued that the question whether homeowner's insurance qualifies as "other insurance"
under Insurance Code section 1 063.1 was expressly raised by CIGA and decided against it10 by the WCJ in April of 2008, and by the WC AB in September of 2009. State Farm
contended these decisions were final and entitled to res judicata effect. Alternatively, State
Farm contended that CIGA's request for reimbursement was barred by the doctrine of laches. State Farm pointed out that it will suffer irreparable harm and prejudice should CIGA be allowed to re-litigate its request for re imbursement. State Farm pointed out that if
CIGA is allowed to seek reimbursement in an amount greater than 25 percent, it will have been denied due process by be ing precluded from litigating the i ssue of employment. State Farm abided by the terms of the stipul ated award and detrimentally relied on it by withdrawing its challenge to the employment issue in 2002. On March 14, 2012, the WCAB denied State Farm's petition for reconsideration. State Farm's petition for writ of review followed.
DISCUSSION The dispositive question before us is whether CIGA's reimbursement claim is barred by res judicata or laches. 4 It is well settled that thes e doctrines apply in workers' compensation litigation. ( Azadigian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 372, 379-380; United Dredging Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1930) 208 Cal. 705, 713-714.) Labor Code section 5950 provides that a party "affected by an order, decision, or award" of the WCAB may, within the prescribed time pe riod, apply to the Court of Appeal for a writ of review "for the purp ose of inquiring into and determining the lawfulness" of the order, decision, or award. "[A]ppellate review . . . is limited to 'final'
orders that determine a substantial right or liability of a party." ( Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 299.) An or der of the WCAB is final for the purpose of seeking judicial review when it "settles, for purposes of the compensation proceeding, an issue critical to the claim for benefits, whether or not it resolves all the issues in the proceeding or represents a de cision on the right to benefits." ( Maranian , supra , 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1075, 1078; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003)

4 We reject CIGA's contention that St ate Farm's petition for writ of review should be dismissed as prematur e. We also reject CIGA's c ontention that our standard of review is abuse of discretion. Th e application of the doctrine of res judicata is a question of law we review de novo. There are no factua l issues involved in this determination.11 112 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1438, fn. 3; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Wo rkers' Comp. Appeals Bd.,

supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at pp. 534-535 .) Such final orders incl ude, for example, threshold orders dismissing a party, rejecting an a ffirmative defense, terminating liability, or determining whether the employer has provided compensation coverage. ( Maranian, at pp. 1075, 1078.)
The characterization of an order or deci sion as final and susceptible to judicial review has critical consequences. The failure of an aggrieved party to seek judicial review
of a final order of the WCAB ba rs later challenge to the prop riety of the order or decision
before either the WCAB or the court. ( Maranian, supra , 81 Cal.App.4th at p.1076; see also Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182.) The purpose of this rule is to facilitate early disposition of core questio ns, and promote the pu blic policy favoring expeditious and inexpensive resolution of workers' compensation claims. ( Maranian, at p. 1078.) CIGA contends that State Farm cannot po int to any place in the record where CIGA's right to reimbursement was consciousl y raised and litigated prior to the WCAB's decision on December 19, 2011. CIGA denies that its right to reimbursement was litigated in April of 2008, June of 2009, or January of 2011. We disagree. In 2008, CIGA filed a formal "Pe tition for Reimbursement," requesting resolution of the question whet her the homeowner's insurance policy qualified as "other
insurance" to make the cl aim against CIGA a non-covere d claim under Insurance Code
section 1063.1. The WCJ found the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to rescind or alter the 2002 stipulated settlement agreement and that CIGA was bound by it. In 2009, CIGA again asked the WCJ to resolve the qu estions whether it should be dismissed pursuant to Insurance
Code section 1063.1 because "other solvent in surance" was available, whether joint and several liability existed for State Farm, and wh ether administration of the claim should be changed. On October 15, 2009, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's findings that CIGA was bound by the 2002 stipulated settlement and ba rred by laches from atte mpting to avoid it. Finally, on January 18, 2011, th e WCAB rejected CIGA's conten tion that liability should be
re-allocated to State Farm because State Fa rm was jointly and severally liable for the12 applicant's injuries. Contrary to CIGA's contention, its entitlement to reimbursement was expressly raised in these proceedings in 2008, 2009, and 2011, and determined adversely to it. CIGA did not seek judicial review of any of these decisions. Consequently, these
decisions have become final and conclusi ve. CIGA is barred by res judicata from relitigating its right to reimbursement. Next, CIGA contends that State Farm misapprehends the obligations created by the 2002 stipulated settlement agreement. It argues that, in the agreement, both Roto
Rooter and Linda McDonald ad mitted concurrent em ployment. Dual employers are jointly and severally liable for payment of all compensa tion due the injury of the shared employee. ( McFarland v. Voorheis-Trindle Co. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 698 [where relationship of general and special employment exists, injured worker can look to both empl oyers for compensation benefits].) CIGA adds that its right to reimburseme nt is statutory and it has no statutory liability for claims covered by other available so lvent insurance. (Ins. Code, § 1063.1, subd. (c)(9).) CIGA argues that State Farm's agr eement to pay 25 percent of the applicant's benefits does not "trump" CIGA 's statutory obligations. We need not address the ultimate ques tion of whether Stat e Farm is jointly and severally liable for 100 percent of the ap plicant's claim, or whether its homeowner's insurance policy is "other in surance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(9), because CIGA did not preserve its right to pursue these issues. 5 Right or wrong, the WCJ's decision in 2008, and th e WCAB's 2009 and 2011 decisi ons are final, and CIGA may not invoke the jurisdiction of the WCAB or th is court to review the lawfulness of those
decisions. The cases cited by CIGA regarding its statutory right to reimbursement are distinguishable. In each of the cases CIGA cites, unlike the facts of this case, CIGA's request for reimbursement due to the presence of other solvent insurance was timely brought

5 We question whether homeowner's insuranc e qualifies as "other insurance" under section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(9), because it is not "available to the claimant." The parties have not briefed whether CI GA is relieved from liability un der Insurance Code section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(5) [covered claims do not include obligations to insurers nor their claims for contribution or indemnity].13 before the WCAB or the Court of Appeal. (E.g., Sherman Loehr Custom Tile Works v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2003) 68 Cal.Comp.Cas es 1262 [two carriers stipulated to percentage of liability before one carrier liquidated; WCAB granted CIGA's timely petition for a change of administrators because other solvent in surance available].) We recognize that the Legislature has limited CIGA's liability to "covered claims." (Ins. Code, § 1063.1.) CIGA's "p owers, duties and respon sibilities are strictly defined and circumscribed by stat ute; they are not co-extensive with the duties owed by the insolvent insurer." ( California Ins. Guaran tee Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 524, 532.) Ne vertheless, this statutory po licy limiting CIGA's liability to covered claims must be weighed against the st rong "public policy intere sts in an expeditious and inexpensive system of wo rkers' compensation, the enco uragement of settlements of workers' compensation pr oceedings to further th at system, the justified expectations of parties dealing with CIGA, the importance of there being an end to litigation, the resulting finality of judgments, and CIGA's role in obtaining the order at issue." ( Fireman's Fund
Ins. Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 752, 770.) Here, the applicant was 61 years old on th e date of her first injury in 1999. She is now 75 years old and the issue of liab ility for her claim continues to be litigated despite CIGA's failure to seek judicial review of adverse decisions in 2008, 2009, and 2011, and the stipulated settlement over a decade ago. In these circumstance s, the strong public policy in favor of CIGA's pa ying only covered claims does not outweigh the policy interests enumerated above. (See Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Wor kers' Compensation Appeals Bd.
, supra , 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 770.) In light of our determination that CIGA's reimbursement claim is barred by principles of res judicata, we need not addre ss State Farm's alternative contentions that it would be deprived of due proc ess if CIGA is allowed to pursu e its reimbursement claim, or14 that CIGA's claim is barred by laches. Contrary to CIGA's contention, these issues were preserved for review and raise substantial concerns. 6

We annul the WCAB's order of Marc h 14, 2012, denying St ate Farm's petition
for reconsideration. We remand the matter to the WCAB for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs ar e awarded to State Farm.

PERREN, J. We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

6 State Farm argues that CIGA has not d iligently pursued its reimbursement claim since it took over administrating the claim in 2003 and that it will suffer prejudice from CIGA's delay, including loss of control over supervision of the medical treatment, deterioration of evidence, diminishment of w itness memory, and its withdrawal of a defense to the issue of employment. (See, e.g., ICW Group v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ( Fieldhouse ) (2003) 68 Cal.Comp.Cases 1217 [writ denied; president of company has wide discretion to place domes tic employees on corporate pa yroll; liability for employee's injury rests solely with corporation's carrier].)Filed 7/25/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

STATE FARM GENE RAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Petitioner,

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al.,
Respondents. 2d Civil No. B240742
(W.C.A.B. Nos. ADJ4684775,

ADJ4381820, ADJ7684775)

ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION

THE COURT: The opinion in the a bove-entitled matter filed on July 1, 2013, was not certified for publication in the Official Repor ts. For good cause it now appears that the opinion should be published in the O fficial Reports and it is so ordered.