Skip to main content

Kalama Services, Inc Cigna Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs

9th CircuitJanuary 15, 2004No. 02-72578Cited 15 times
Defendant WinKalama Services, Inc.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Tashima, Thomas, Silverman
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Workers’ Compensation

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Benefits Review Board's decision and held that the off-duty employee's bar injury did not arise out of employment under the Defense Base Act, despite the isolated location creating a zone of special danger.

What This Ruling Means

What Happened:
An employee of Kalama Services was injured while off-duty at a bar. The employee worked at an isolated location covered by the Defense Base Act, a federal law that provides workers' compensation for employees working overseas for U.S. contractors. The employee claimed the injury should be covered by workers' compensation because the remote location created a "zone of special danger" where employees had limited options for recreation and socializing.

The Court's Decision:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the employee. The court found that even though the workplace was in an isolated location, the off-duty bar injury did not "arise out of employment." This means the injury wasn't sufficiently connected to the job to qualify for workers' compensation benefits under the Defense Base Act.

Why This Matters for Workers:
This ruling shows that workers' compensation coverage has limits, even in remote locations. Just because you're working somewhere isolated doesn't automatically mean all off-duty injuries will be covered. Workers at overseas or remote job sites should understand that their recreational activities may not be protected under workers' compensation, even when entertainment options are limited by location.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.