Pacific Employers Insurance Company
18 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2002–2013)
21 trusted published court opinions across 18 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Pacific Employers Insurance Company as an employer in 18 distinct federal employment cases between 2002 and 2013.
Of the 21 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 10 ended in a ruling for the employer, 4 had a mixed result, 3 ended in a ruling for the worker, and 3 were dismissed.
Plaintiffs won 3 of 20 adjudicated opinions (15%).
The most common claims on record were Breach Of Contract and Failure To Accommodate.
Cases were filed across 2 states, most often in IL.
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 18 distinct cases.
3 of 20 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Pacific Employers Insurance Company appears in 21 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Malish v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co. (2003) — Mixed Result. This case involved a dispute over medical treatment coverage under workers' compensation insurance. The worker, Malish, had issues with Pacific Employers Insurance Company regarding payment for medical services. Read the ruling.
Deborah Malish v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Ace American Insurance Company (2003) — Mixed Result. Deborah Malish sued her workers' compensation insurance companies after being injured at work. She claimed the insurers broke their contract by refusing to pay for medical treatment, acted in bad faith, and failed to accommodate her needs. Read the ruling.
Deborah Malish v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Ace American Insurance Company (2003) — Mixed Result. Deborah Malish sued three insurance companies after they allegedly failed to provide proper workers' compensation benefits. She claimed the companies breached their contract, acted in bad faith, and failed to accommodate her needs. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Breach of Contract (8 of 21), Failure to Accommodate (3 of 21). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Breach of Contract and Failure to Accommodate.
Published opinions span Illinois (1), Pennsylvania (1). Illinois is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Illinois rulings and Pennsylvania rulings.
These published opinions sit within the financial services sector, where Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections often supplement standard Title VII claims.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
21 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 1 summary-judgment opinions, 1 ended the case in Pacific Employers Insurance Company’s favor and 0 let the worker’s claims continue.
What do these stages mean?
- Appeal
- A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
- Summary judgment
- A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Facing something similar? Check your rights →
Claim Types
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other Finance employers
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.