Job openings: Actuaries, actuarial analyst, market conduct examiner

  • Actuaries: Due to retirements, we have two openings for actuaries now, helping with financial examinations, analysis and licensing of life insurers or health insurers. Other typical duties include reviewing rates, equity-indexed annuities, etc. For details on these jobs, including salary and benefits, please see this job listing for both acturarial jobs.

  • Actuarial analyst: We're also looking for an actuarial analyst to fill a vacancy created when a staffer shifted over to a federally-funded project that we're working on (part of health care reform). Duties include reviewing actuarial calculations submitted by health insurance carriers to determine if rate requests are justified. For specifics, here's that job listing. The deadline for applying is 4:59 p.m. on Thursday, Oct. 6.

  • Market Conduct Examiner: We also have a vacancy in our Seattle office for a market conduct examiner. This job includes reviewing and analyzing company records and procedures. Here's a detailed job listing, including other duties, salary, etc. The deadline for applying is 5 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 7, 2011.

Home warranty company ordered to stop selling illegal coverage

A Florida company, its principals and subsidiaries have been ordered to stop selling unauthorized home warranties in Washington state.

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has ordered International Warranty Administration Services, Inc. and related entities to stop selling service contracts in Washington. The company and its subsidiaries are believed to have sold dozens of unauthorized service contracts in the state, but are not licensed to solicit insurance here.

Kreidler's order also includes The Metropolitan Benefit Group, Inc., doing business as HomeChoice Plans, HomeChoice Household Service Plans, Choice Plans LLC, and "ChoicePlans a division of the IWASI Group." Also named were International Warranty Administration Services' principals Kacey L. Crouch, also known as Kasey L. Crouch, and Mark Lowenstein.

See the link above for the full text of the order.

Insurance agents and brokers fined for violations

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has ordered fines and other disciplinary action for more than a dozen insurance agents and brokers.

Violations include failing to properly disclose fees, using a false Social Security number and wrongly disclosing a customer’s private health information.

“I should point out that these cases are only a tiny fraction of the more than 118,000 agents and brokers licensed to do business here in Washington,” said Kreidler.

Any Washingtonian with a complaint against an insurer, agent or broker can contact Kreidler’s office at 1-800-562-6900 or file a complaint online at http://www.insurance.wa.gov/.

Any fines collected do not go to the agency. They are deposited in the state’s general fund to pay for other state services.

Fines and disciplinary actions from early June through early September include:

■HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., New York, NY: Fined $7,000 for violations including failing to report administrative actions taken against it.

■Conover Insurance Inc., Yakima, Wash.: Fined $6,000 for providing false information on 12 license renewal applications.

■Kimberly A. Kelly, doing business as Peoples Insurance Agency, Inc., Renton, Wash.: Fined $250 for using a fee disclosure form that didn’t comply with state law.

■Kimberly D. Brookey, Kent, Wash.: Fined $250 for using a fee disclosure form that didn’t comply with state law.

■Ryan J. Graczyk, Spokane Valley, Wash.: Fined $500 for incorrectly and incompletely answering questions on a disclosure form to a consumer.

■Warren M. King, doing business as Exact Financial Group, Inc., Renton, Wash.: Fined $500 for violations including submitting a life insurance application with inaccurate information.

■Swiss Valley Agency, Inc., doing business as North Town Insurance, Spokane, Wash.: Fined $250 for using a fee disclosure form that didn’t comply with state law.

■Rick L. Clatfelter, Chandler, Ariz.: License not renewed for making misleading statements on an insurance application.

■Lucky Bail Bonds, Inc. and Eric Arps, Bellingham, Wash.: Fined $5,500 for violations including misrepresenting to the court that he personally completed and signed certain documents.

■Robert J. Mills Jr., Wilton, CT: Fined $5,000 and ordered to stop selling insurance in Washington without a license.

■Colleen S. Schmertz, Bellingham, Wash.: Fined $500 for issuing bail bonds without a proper insurance license.

■Maria E. Bejines, Monroe, Wash.: License revoked for violations including using a false Social Security number on her insurance license application.

■Phyllis N. Golden, Seattle, Wash.: Fined $250 for providing false information about continuing education courses.

■Tiffany Lynn Lewis, Irving, Tx.: License revoked due to a felony conviction for stealing money from a client.

■Northpoint Escrow & Title, LLC, Bellevue, Wash: Fined $500 for improperly sponsoring a promotional event.

■James Timothy Shelnut, Augusta, Ga.: License revoked for failing to report administrative actions in other states, including violations of Georgia’s Ethics in Government Act.

■Ticor Title Co., Renton, Wash.: Fined $1,500 for improperly sponsoring a promotional event and offering to refund class tuition if attendees failed the quiz at the end of the class.

Orders and specific details about each of these cases are posted online at http://www.insurance.wa.gov/orders/enforcement.asp.

Note: In some cases, the fines were larger, but a portion was suspended on the condition that the companies follow compliance plans to remedy the problems. The fines listed above are what’s actually being paid.

Insurers fined for violations

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has fined insurance companies nearly $1 million this year for violating Washington insurance laws. Violations included charging unapproved rates, improper advertising, and failing to offer health coverage to children.
The fines collected do not go to the agency. They are deposited in the state’s general fund to pay for other state services.
Any Washingtonian with a complaint against an insurer, agent or broker can contact the office at 1-800-562-6900 or file a complaint online at http://www.insurance.wa.gov/.

Fines and other disciplinary actions against insurers from June to September include:
■UNUM Life Insurance Co., Portland, Me.: Fined $75,000 for selling long term care coverage using unapproved policies.

■Allstate Insurance Co., Northbrook, Ill: Fined $50,000 for issuing policies using unfiled and unapproved rates.

■UnitedHealthCare, Hartford, Conn.: Fined $26,000 for sending people wishing to appeal the insurer’s decisions to the wrong entity.

■Arch Insurance Co., Kansas City, Mo.: Fined $20,000 for violations including failing to keep adequate accounts and records.

■Chicago Title Insurance Co., Omaha, Neb.: Fined $10,000 for improperly advertising with producers of title insurance business.

■Lifewise Health Plan of Washington, Mountlake Terrace, Wash.: Fined $10,000 for failing to offer coverage to children in certain cases.

■Metropolitan Life Insurance, New York, NY: Fined $10,000 for failing to calculate benefit amounts in accordance with Washington law.

■Victoria Fire & Casualty Co., Cleveland, Ohio: Fined $5,000 for failing to adequately respond to inquiries.

■Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. (Santa Barbara, Calif.) Chicago Title Insurance Co. and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. (both of Omaha, Neb.): Ordered to stop offering discounts to producers of title insurance business.

Orders and details about each of these cases are posted online at http://www.insurance.wa.gov/orders/enforcement.asp.

Note: In some cases, the fines were larger, but a portion was suspended on the condition that the companies follow compliance plans to remedy the problems. The fines listed above are what’s actually being paid.

South Carolina Enacts Tort Reform Placing Limits on Punitive Damage Awards

Post by Logan Wells
Greetings from Greenville, S.C.!

I'm Logan Wells, and I would like to thank you for being a part of my first blogging experience. Thankfully, tort reform in South Carolina, the topic of my first ever blog post, is of great interest and significance to me and hopefully to you as well. This first post is about the limits now placed on punitive damage awards. If you have any questions/comments, please don't hesitate to contact me.
 - Logan.

On June 14, 2011, the South Carolina Fairness in Civil Justice Act of 2011 was signed into law. The Act will become effective on January 1, 2012, making significant changes to the law concerning punitive damage awards in South Carolina.

Caps on Punitive Damages Awards

Generally, under the Act, no award of punitive damages may exceed the greater of three times the compensatory damage awarded to each plaintiff or the sum of $500,000.00. However, the cap may be increased to the greater of four times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to each claimant or $2 million if:

(1)       the defendant’s conduct was motivated primarily by unreasonable financial gain and the unreasonably dangerous nature of the conduct and the high likelihood that injury would result from the conduct was known or approved by the managing agent, director, officer or the person responsible for making policy decisions for the defendant; OR
(2)       the defendant’s conduct which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages could subject the defendant to conviction of a felony.
Furthermore, the caps on punitive damages are subject to exceptions. Under the Act, there are no caps on punitive damages if:

(1)       at the time of the injury, the defendant had an intent to harm and did in fact harm the plaintiff; OR
(2)       the defendant has plead guilty to or been convicted of a felony and the course of conduct which is the basis of the felony was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages; OR
(3)       the defendant acted or failed to act while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, other than lawfully prescribed drugs administered in accordance with a prescription, or any intentionally consumed glue, aerosol, or other toxic vapor to the degree that the defendant’s judgment is substantially impaired.
Other Changes to South Carolina Law on Punitive Damages

The Act also makes other changes to South Carolina’s law concerning punitive damages. A plaintiff now must specifically ask for punitive damages in the complaint. In addition, under the Act, a defendant has a right to a bifurcated trial if requested. In the first stage of the trial evidence the jury determines liability and the amount compensatory damages. Evidence relevant only to the issue of punitive damages is not admissible at this stage. In the second stage of a bifurcated trial, the jury shall determine if a defendant is liable for punitive damages, and if determined to be liable, the amount of punitive damages. In determining the amount of punitive damages, the jury may consider all relevant evidence including, but not limited to:

(1)       the defendant’s degree of culpability;
(2)       the severity of the harm caused by the defendant;
(3)       the extent to which the plaintiff’s own conduct contributed to the harm;
(4)       the duration of the conduct, the defendant’s awareness, and any concealment by the defendant;
(5)       the existence of similar past conduct;
(6)       the profitability of the conduct to the defendant;
(7)       the defendant’s ability to pay;
(8)       the likelihood the award will deter the defendant or others from like conduct;  
(9)       the awards of punitive damages against the defendant in any state or federal court action alleging harm from the same act or course of conduct complained of by the plaintiff;
(10)     any criminal penalties imposed on the defendant as a result of the same act or course of conduct complained of by the plaintiff; and
(11)     the amount of any civil fines assessed against the defendant as a result of the same act or course of conduct complained of by the plaintiff.
If the jury awards punitive damages, the trial court must review the jury’s decision, considering all relevant evidence including the 11 aforementioned factors. In an action with multiple defendants, a punitive damages award must be specific to each defendant, and each defendant is liable only for the amount of the award made against that defendant.

Information contained in written statement insured gave to insurer – is the insured required to provide this information at examination for discovery?

In Sangaralingam v. Sinnathurai, [2011] ONSC 1618, when examining the defendant for discovery, counsel for the plaintiff requested that the defendant provide information contained in the written statement he gave to his insurer following the motor vehicle accident. Defendant’s counsel refused to provide the statement or the contained information on the grounds that it was protected by litigation privilege.

A motion was made to a master who ruled that the defendant was not required to provide the information in the statement on the basis that the defendant had already been examined for discovery at length and the plaintiff also received a copy of the statement the defendant provided to the police following the accident. Therefore, such questioning would be solely with respect to the credibility of the defendant.

The master’s decision was appealed. The motions judge required the defendant to answer the question. The motions judge relied on the principle that questions on discovery seeking the facts of a party’s case do not offend privilege even though the source of the facts is a document over which privilege is being asserted.

There was a further appeal to the Divisional Court. Justice Herman referred to the test for when litigation privilege should be set aside as provided by Justice Ducharme in Kennedy v. McKenzie, [2005] O.J. No. 2060: where “the materials being sought are relevant to the proof of an issue important to the outcome of the case and [that] there is no reasonable alternative form of evidence that can serve the same purpose”.

Upon application of this test to the case at hand, Justice Herman concluded that in the course of the examination for discovery, counsel for the plaintiff had the opportunity to ask questions of the defendant that were relevant to the material issues. The defendant was co-operative and was not withholding information. Therefore, there was an alternative means available to obtain the relevant information and as a result litigation privilege should not be set aside.

Also, with respect to whether the request was directed solely to the credibility of the defendant, Justice Herman stated that it was his opinion that the sole purpose of the question being asked was to find out what the defendant told his insurer and therefore was asked for the sole purpose of credibility.

Two more health plans request rate changes

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest is requesting a 9% average rate increase for its individual health plans (health plan you buy yourself) and Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon is asking to lower its small employer plan rates (health plans for employers with 1-50 employees) by an average of 1.6%.

See the all of the information submitted with the rate requests and a brief summary of both on our new health rate page. Both rates, if approved, take effect Jan. 1, 2012.

Bizarre insurance claims

Forbes has posted a list of bizarre insurance claims compiled by Chartis Insurance Co. Don't try these at home. Among them:

A man who set his Porsche on fire trying to dry out the floor mat with a leaf blower.

Someone who slowly melted an Andy Warhol painting by hanging it above a fireplace.

A man who managed to destroy his car engine -- and the car was a Bentley Continental -- by trying to charge it up by setting a brick on the accelerator, and then going to take a shower. The overheated engine seized.

Click on the link above for the rest.

Kreidler: Health insurer rate requests now public

For the first time, consumers can now see health insurers' complete rate requests, Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler recently told Comcast's Newsmakers program.

Kreidler pushed for a change in state law to allow the forms to be disclosed. Soon, consumers will not only be able to view the documents easily online, but comment on the requested rates.

South Carolina Supreme Court Decision Analyzes Insurance Coverage for Progressive Damage Cases

Post by Pete Dworjanyn
The South Carolina Supreme Court has issued an opinion holding that defective construction resulting in property damage to non-defective components may be covered by a general liability policy. On August 22, 2011, the court withdrew its January 7, 2011, opinion in Crossmann Communities v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company and replaced it with an opinion that is essentially a complete reversal of the withdrawn opinion.

The issue to be decided was whether a general liability policy provided coverage for progressive damage caused by water penetration which resulted from defective construction. In the initial Crossmann opinion, the court found defective construction was not an occurrence because it lacked the "accident" portion of the definition of "occurrence." In the substituted opinion, the court reversed itself. The court noted an "occurrence" was once simply defined as an "accident." However, in 1966, the definition of an "occurrence" was expanded to include "continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions." The court conceded that it had, along with other courts, struggled to discern the meaning of the expanded occurrence definition in the context of progressive damage cases. The court concluded in its August decision that the lack of a clear meaning left an ambiguity that must be construed against the insurer, stating, "In sum, we clarify that negligent or defective construction resulting in damage to otherwise non-defective components may constitute property damage, but the defective construction would not."

In the second significant holding in Crossmann, the court rejected "joint and several liability" for insurers providing coverage in a progressive damage suit,  instead adopting a "time on risk" framework. In so doing, the court overruled Century Indemnity Co. v. Golden Hill Builders, Inc., 348 S.C. 559, 561 S.E. 2d 355 (2002), and Century Indemnity's apparent adoption of the "joint and several" framework. The "time on risk" rule limits an insurer's exposure to damage that takes place during the policy period. It also requires a policyholder to bear a pro rata portion of the loss corresponding to any portion of the progressive damage during which the policyholder was not insured or purchased insufficient insurance.         
Gavel

Courts adhering to the "joint and several" theory require each triggered insurer to indemnify its policyholder for the entire loss caused by progressive damage, up to the policy limit. The policyholder is often permitted to target the policy from which it will seek indemnity. That insurer may then seek partial reimbursement from other insurers. The Crossmann opinion rejected that approach as ignoring the policy language limiting the insurer's obligation to pay sums attributable to property damage that occurred during the policy period.    

The court then gave guidance to the trial courts on how to apply the "time on risk" approach. The court noted an ideal application of the approach would require the fact finder to determine precisely how much of the injury-in-fact occurred during each policy period. The court recognized this was often both scientifically and administratively impossible.

In cases where it was impossible to know the exact measure of damages attributable to the injury, courts have divided the total incurred as a result of the property damage and then devised a formula to divide that loss in a manner that reasonably approximates the loss attributable to each policy period. The formula consists of the number of years an insurer provided coverage divided by the total number of years during which the damage progressed, which is multiplied by the total amount the policyholder has become liable to pay as damages for the entire progressive injury. The court noted this is a default rule that assumed the damage occurred in equal proportions; however, if proof is available showing the damage progressed in some different way, then the allocation of losses would need to conform to that proof.

Turning to the underlying facts in Crossmann, the court noted a strict application of the "time on risk" formula might be inappropriate. In the underlying case, there were numerous buildings involved that each had their own certificates of occupancy. The parties stipulated the damage began within 30 days after the certificate of occupancy was issued for each building. Thus, as to each building, each policy may be "on the risk" for a slightly different proportion. The court left it to the trial court to determine a reasonable methodology for resolving the damages issue.       

Notably, the decision largely obviates South Carolina Code § 38-61-70, signed into law this summer, which was rushed through the legislature in response to the initial Crossmann opinion. Section 38-61-70 defines "Commercial General Liability" policies of insurance as they relate to construction professionals. The statute provides that commercial general liability insurance policies shall contain or be deemed to contain a definition of "occurrence" that includes:
  1. an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions; and
  2. property damage or bodily injury resulting from faulty workmanship, exclusive of the faulty workmanship itself.
In footnote six of the opinion, the Crossmann court noted it did not address "recent legislation that seeks in part to impose a construction on existing insurance policies in pending actions." Subsequent to the passage of the legislation, Harleysville filed suit in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction seeking a finding, among other things, that retroactive application of the legislation was unconstitutional. The Crossmann opinion likely renders the suit moot.

In conclusion, South Carolina rejoins those jurisdictions holding that general liability policies may provide coverage for resulting damage in progressive injury construction defect cases. Fortunately, an insurer's exposure is now limited to the resulting damage that takes places during the policy period. Insurers are no longer potentially liable for all of the damage simply as a result of having coverage for a limited portion of a larger period of resulting damage.

For more information, contact me at pdworjanyn@collinsandlacy.com or (803) 255-0404.  

Article I must share

TN lawmakers give negligent nursing homes a break

Written by
Walter F. Roche Jr. | The Tennessean

When Dennis Matthews hears lobbyists and nursing home operators in Tennessee talk about the high cost of lawsuits and the need for tort reform, he can only shudder.

Matthews sued Tennessee-based Life Care Centers of America after his mother, Verdie, died from dehydration and malnutrition at one of the chain’s nursing homes in Cleveland, Tenn.

After an 11-day trial, the jury found that the nursing home was negligent and awarded the family $11.5 million, but Bradley County Judge Ginger Buchanan threw out the verdict. She granted the nursing home’s motion for a new trial, saying that the evidence did not support the amount of the jury award. Matthews eventually reached a settlement with the nursing chain for a fraction of the jury award.

“It was horrible. I hate to even think about it,” Matthews said.

A Tennessean review of laws, inspection reports and lawsuits has shown that for people such as Matthews who have lost a loved one in a Tennessee nursing home, things may be about to get worse.

Even as a large segment of the population moves into its later years of life and might require nursing home care, Tennessee is moving toward lighter regulation of nursing homes, fewer state investigations and laws that make it more difficult to bring potentially costly lawsuits against operators.

Many nursing homes in Tennessee also now require patients or their families to sign agreements waiving their rights to a trial before admission.

A measure passed earlier this year by the legislature places strict new limits on the rights of nursing home patients and their families to sue nursing homes for poor care. That law, which caps the amount a jury can award, goes into effect this week.

This comes just a couple of years after the legislature in 2009 vastly reduced oversight of the 325 nursing homes in the state by eliminating regulations mandating that nursing home operators file detailed reports on adverse events affecting patients. Also eliminated were requirements that the state investigate those incidents. Officials said the change was needed so they could spend their time investigating more serious complaints.

Tennessee has not fared well compared with other states in some key quality measures of nursing homes. And federal officials have said the state has failed in its regulation of such homes. A report issued this year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office gave the state Health Department failing scores for its performance in investigating serious complaints against nursing homes. It said there was a backlog of cases that had gone uninvestigated, and it cited a staff shortage as a factor.

The new limits on lawsuits could shut down yet another avenue of complaints — the courtroom. Plaintiffs’ lawyers candidly admit that the new caps will keep many nursing home malpractice claims from ever getting to court, in part because lawyers will be less inclined to take the cases.

“By limiting the only damages a nursing home resident has, the new law has made it virtually impossible, in some cases, for attorneys to recover a reasonable amount of money for the victims and their families,” said Nashville attorney Randy Kinnard.

The tort reform bill sets a $750,000 cap on pain and suffering claims against a nursing home. A higher $1 million cap applies to limited types of cases. Caps do not apply if intentional misconduct is found. Nor is there any cap on economic damages, such as doctor and hospital bills or lost wages.

H. Lee Barfield II, an attorney who represents nursing homes and lobbied for the tort reform bill on behalf of Tennesseans for Economic Growth, said that he did not believe the new law would limit access to the court system. But he acknowledged the law would significantly reduce the amount juries can award. In one case he cited, a jury verdict of$34 million would have been limited to $2.55 million if the new law had been in place.

He stressed that support for the new tort law came from a coalition of businesses across the state, not just nursing homes.

Ranked near bottom
Tennessee nursing homes already rank near the bottom nationally in two key areas of care, according to federal data. Without the threat of lawsuits, some attorneys and advocates think, it will sink even lower.

Data compiled by the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show Tennessee ranks fourth out of 50 from the bottom in the number of hours per patient per day provided by certified nurse assistants. It ranks seventh from the bottom in registered nurse hours per patient per day, according to the CMS data.

The latest data show Tennessee nursing homes provide an average of 0.62 hours of registered nursing care per patient per day. Assistant Health Commissioner Christy Allen said that was comparable to other states in the region. Neighboring Kentucky provides 0.8 hours, while Florida provides 0.64. The states that provide the most hours are generally lower-population states: Hawaii nursing homes average 1.36 hours, Delaware provides 1.22 hours and Alaska 1.86 hours.

According to state health officials, current law and regulations require licensed nursing personnel to provide only 0.4 hours of direct care per patient each day.

Professor John F. Schnelle of the Vanderbilt Center for Quality Aging said studies have shown that increasing the hours of nursing care provided to patients can improve quality.

But he cautioned, “There has to be a substantial increase in staff levels before you see a significant improvement in quality.”

Several published studies, including a report from the Institute of Medicine and one co-authored by Schnelle, have found links between staffing levels and the quality of care provided in licensed nursing homes.

Federal scrutiny
Tennessee’s regulation of the nursing home industry has come under scrutiny in audits conducted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

In the report issued in April, Tennessee failed to achieve passing marks in three areas: prioritizing complaints; performing timely investigations of complaints in cases in which patients were in immediate jeopardy; and performing timely investigations of complaints when a patient had endured actual harm.

In a 2008 report, the GAO cited Tennessee as one of nine states in which serious deficiencies were missed more than a quarter of the time. The auditors found that Tennessee inspectors missed 26.3 percent of the serious deficiencies — those that could cause actual harm or place patients in immediate jeopardy.

A year later, in August 2009, another GAO audit report cited Tennessee as the No. 1 state in which the number of poorly performing homes was understated. While only three Tennessee facilities had been designated as poorly performing and placed in a “special focus” category, GAO estimated the actual number should have been 14.

Currently the federal government categorizes one nursing home in the region, Imperial Gardens Health and Rehabilitation Center in Madison, as a special focus facility. Special focus facilities are subject to closer oversight and more frequent inspections. Homes participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs are generally inspected at least once every 15 months.

Imperial Gardens Administrator Rene Sharp said the facility has corrected all the deficiencies cited in a state Health Department report issued this year.

Allen, the assistant health commissioner, in an email response to questions about the GAO reports, noted that the federal government, not the state, determines which homes are placed on the special focus list. She also noted that two of the studies were issued two or three years ago and that the department has taken steps to respond.

“The department does pay close attention to GAO reports,” she wrote.

She acknowledged, however, that the department’s nursing inspection team currently has a 31 percent vacancy rate, just as it did at the time of the audits. Twenty-four of the authorized 77 positions are vacant.

Department officials said they have been unable to fill the positions because registered nurses are in high demand and private-sector jobs pay higher.

Allen said the department has worked through the 2,850 backlogged cases noted in the GAO review and has only 12 left. In the meantime, however, the agency has built an additional backlog of 292 open complaints.

“We made a huge push to reduce the backlog of investigations with the staff we have, but it is unrealistic to expect employees to continue to perform at that level indefinitely. We need more staff to share the workload on an ongoing basis,” Allen wrote.

Short-lived victory?
Early this year, the Tennessee Supreme Court in a 12-page decision delivered a virtually complete victory to the family of a 57-year-old woman who died after a four-month stay at a Chattanooga nursing home.

The suit charged that Martha French, who had suffered a debilitating stroke, developed pressure sores or ulcers that, because of poor care, became infected, leading to her death from sepsis.

The decision reversed most of an unfavorable appeals court decision and concluded that French’s family could pursue medical malpractice and negligence claims against Stratford House, a 127-bed nursing home. That meant that all of the family’s claims would not be placed under the strict requirements of the state medical malpractice law.

In addition, the court ruled that the family could pursue negligence claims based on violations of state and federal regulations and under the state Adult Protection Act.

But even as lawyers assessed the victory, a move was afoot to undo it.

Despite protests from some legislators and advocates for the eldery, the nursing home provisions in the tort reform bill included a key provision that brings all claims against nursing homes under the strict limits of the medical malpractice law, eliminating separate claims for negligence and requiring plaintiffs to provide certification that the care provided did not meet local standards. Punitive damages also are limited to $500,000 or two times the pain and suffering claims. Claims under a protection from abuse also will be blocked.

Lawyers who regularly take nursing home negligence and malpractice cases say the new law completely reverses the French decision.

“I think it is going to effectively weaken protection for vulnerable adults. There will be much less accountability,” said James B. McHugh, a Mississippi attorney who has tried nursing home cases in Tennessee.

Mark Geller, a Memphis lawyer, said the law, by putting a cap on possible claims, will allow nursing home operators to calculate in advance how little care they can provide.

“A person’s life is worth $750,000. That’s it.”

Barfield said the nursing home industry in Tennessee was facing a financial crisis under the old system and changes were necessary.

“What this does is provide predictability so the companies can plan,” he said.

He said it remains to be seen whether the new law will negate the court ruling.

“We’ll see. The jury is still out,” Barfield said.

PACs gave to governor, sponsors of 2009 bill
D. Gerald Coggin, vice president of Murfreesboro-based National Healthcare Corp., one of the largest nursing home chains in the country, said it’s too early to predict what savings may result from the new law. He noted that nursing homes are already facing cutbacks in payments under the Medicare program.

One of NHC’s homes, AdamsPlace in Murfreesboro, achieved the top five-star ranking from CMS. The home gained the top score in three of four categories, including inspections and overall quality of care.

State campaign finance records show that Gov. Bill Haslam and key legislators got substantial contributions for their election campaigns from nursing home owners and affiliated political action committees.

Haslam’s committee collected more than $28,000 from the state nursing home association PAC, formed by National Healthcare Corp. and owners and officials of nursing homes. Sen. Bill Ketron’s campaign committee collected nearly $10,000, while Speaker Beth Harwell’s committee took in $11,000.

In 2009, Tennessee nursing home owners benefited from another act of the General Assembly. A measure backed by then-Gov. Phil Bredesen’s administration stripped from the law books pages of reporting requirements on adverse events and other problems in the state’s more than 300 licensed nursing homes.

The sponsors of the bill were all the recipients of campaign contributions from nursing home political action committees.

An aide to state Sen. James F. Kyle Jr., a Memphis Democrat and the Senate sponsor, said the law had to be changed because the state Health Department could not keep up with the law’s requirements.

“They had a big backlog, and this was a way to streamline things,” he said.

Allen confirmed that the department requested the change.

Kyle’s campaign committee collected $4,500 from nursing home PACs over the past three years. House sponsor Rep. Mike Turner collected $4,500 from nursing home PACs, while co-sponsor David Shepard brought in $3,000 from the nursing home interest for his campaign.

The Health Department spokeswoman said the change in reporting requirements enacted in 2009 enabled the agency to focus on more serious complaints and respond more quickly.

For Dennis Matthews, who saw an $11.5 million jury award literally disappear, the experience has left him with a bitter taste.

“I will never ever have faith in the judicial system again,” he said. He said his mother was supposed to be in the home for only 30 days’ rehabilitation. “She got no food or water. That was proven.”

Lawyers for the nursing home denied the charges.



Vote for me!

LexisNexis is inviting comments on its nominees for the 2011 Top 50 Insurance Law Blogs. If you enjoy my blog, please let them know. You can post comments here.

The Canadian Institute of Actuaries’ Recommendations to the Rules Committee on the Prescribed Discount Rate and Prejudgment Interest

On June 1, 2011 the Canadian Institute of Actuaries (CIA) submitted their observations and recommendations to the Civil Rules Committee with respect to the Committee’s review of rules 52.09 and 53.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (“the Rules”). The CIA reviewed these rules from the perspective of today’s economy − a low interest rate environment.

Rule 52.09(1) lays out how the discount rate is to be calculated for awards for future pecuniary damages in order to account for investment and price inflation rates. The CIA pointed out that the prescribed interest rate in Ontario for the first 15 years is lower than any other province or territory where discount rates are prescribed for this purpose. As a result, since interest rates are at historically low levels, a plaintiff will receive a higher settlement in Ontario than a plaintiff in another province or territory.

Rule 52.09(1) provides for a negative adjustment of 1%. This negative adjustment is a result of a belief in 2000 that rates of return for real return bonds were higher than the true underlying expected real rate of return. The CIA believes that this may not be a valid justification in today’s economic environment but noted that this negative adjustment could serve a valid public policy objective by providing a margin for adverse investment contingencies.

The CIA noted that there is a potential for misinterpretation of rule 53.09(1) and recommended that the wording be altered slightly to clarify that there is not only one discount rate to be applied to one particular loss under 53.09(1) and to make it clear that the rate prescribed by 53.09(1)(a) is to be used in discounting all losses.

Lastly with respect to rule 53.09(1), the CIA suggested that the Committee consider prescribing a nominal discount rate that could be used in situations when a real discount rate would be inappropriate.

Rule 53.10 sets the prejudgment interest rate for non-pecuniary damages at 5% per year. The CIA acknowledges that this rate is reasonable from a public policy perspective as it motivates settlement and compensates successful plaintiffs for delays in resolution. However, the CIA suggests that a floating rate based on yields on GICs with an adjustment may be a consideration. They recognize however that this would largely increase the complexity.

The Condo Renewal Blues

Got a call this morning from the manager of a residential condo complex here in Maine.



Last year's premium was $12,000.  Traveler's non-renewed the policy, as it is "coastal."  The manager worked with the current agent; several board members tried to help by going to other agents.  This left the insured with multiple agents all going to the same insurers, multiple quotes from multiple insurers, several from the same insurance company, but different premiums.



The current policy expires in eight days.



The manager is frustrated, confused, and looking at a higher premium (I won't tell you how high, as agents are still working on this and may read my blog).  Big mess.  Nobody is happy; not the manager, not the board, not the agents, not the underwriters.



I offered a solution that often works: go to a direct writer who has not been in the game yet.



I don't know if this will solve the problem.  I sent them to an agent for Nationwide who has done good work for other clients.



Sometimes the solution to a problem is a very hard right.



It does not untangle the rat's nest.  It throws it out.  As I said, a hard right.



Now, to the preventative:



Renewals must be managed by the insurance buyer.  Nobody looks after your business like you do.  Take it on and hold your agent accountable.  Set dates and expectations.



If you are going to get competitive bids, that process needs to be managed, too.



There can only be one captain of the boat.  The condo above had too many people contacting agents with no coordination.



You must assign insurers to agents.  Find out which insurer each participating agent wants to use.  Assign insurers to the agents based on the requests of the agents.  Someday I hope that insurers will provide quotes to multiple agents.  Until then, we must assign insurers.



If I hear how this works out, I'll let you know.




How to appeal when your insurer says no

We've updated our online guide showing how you can file an appeal when your health insurer denies a claim or turns down a medical procedure. We've added sample letters, tips, and updated it to reflect new regulations.

See "How to Appeal a Health Care Insurance Decision: A Guide for Consumers in Washington State."

Welcome to the South Carolina Insurance Law Blog!

Post by Pete Dworjanyn
Greetings!

Welcome to the South Carolina Insurance Law Blog. Our goal is to provide you with timely information and updates on legal issues related to the practice of insurance coverage. We look forward to sharing out thoughts with you, and we welcome you to share yours with us.

As the first attorney to post on our site, I'd like to formally introduce myself.  I am Pete Dworjanyn, the Chair of the Collins & Lacy Insurance Coverage Practice Group. We are thrilled to be launching this new adventure and sharing our knowledge and experience with you in the "blogosphere."

For our first post, I'd like to share our Collins & Lacy Insurance Coverage website page. It details more about who we are, what we do and how we do it.

Then - as a tease to come back to our blog - our next post will be on a recent S.C. Supreme Court ruling that analyzes insurance coverage for progressive damage cases.

Until next time,
- Pete

Work Comp Classifications






From a reader...





Scott:





In presenting our insurance coverage information to a board this afternoon, I was questioned by an HR professional, who sits on one of our boards, regarding our WC classification of employees.  Almost 100% of our employees (except couriers/custodial) are classed as 8810 Clerical.  I reviewed this in-depth with our agent at the last renewal and the conclusion was to continue this blanket classification of most all employees.  The board member is suggesting that perhaps our commercial loan officers should be classed as “Outside Sales” – 8742.





What are your thoughts regarding addressing this again, and what are our risks in the event that the insurer feels we have mis-classed a group of employees?





Thanks,











My reply...





Glad to help.





I don't see this as a risk.  It is, however, something I would have pointed out had you retained me to help with the standard lines of insurance - nudge!





Two issues...





First, cash flow.  It is possible that sometime in the future an insurance company auditor will adjust the most recent policy and the current policy premiums.  That might mean about 70 cents per $100 (depending on your policy's rates) in payroll for those who should be classified as sales.





My second issue is less often discussed.  You have an experience modification as a part of your workers' compensation premium calculation.  It is a ratio of expected losses to actual losses.  An experience mod of 1.00 is average.  0.85 means your losses are below average.  1.25 means your losses are higher than average.





As you are putting payroll in a low rate / low hazard code (clerical) your mod is probably a point higher.  Even if you have low losses, misclassification pushes the mod up - though only slightly, as the relative payrolls are low.





While a higher mod (.01 or so, if that) does increase your premium, you are saving net on premium with employees rated in lower codes.





That said, classification is the insurer's responsibility - unless you are lying to the auditor, and that's fraud.  If the insurance company makes a mistake, it is their mistake.





There is no risk to claims not being paid.  There is no risk of a fine or any penalty.





I normally counsel my clients to sit tight.  If the auditor changes class, then pay the additional premium.





Work comp is like baseball - the other team has to tell the umpire you missed the base.  It is not golf where you are expected to rat on yourself.





Let me know if you have questions.  I am glad to talk about a review of the standard lines of insurance for your bank.





HURT ON YOUR PROPERTY?


I grew up hearing that if someone was hurt on your property it was automatically YOUR fault.

I was in law school when I learned that was NOT TRUE.

It has never been true. But, like most myths, there is an element of truth. First of all, property insurance sometimes has a provision called medical payments.

Medical payments can be made regardless of fault So it is not liability based at all. For example, if you are playing basketball at a friends house and just fall, med pay can take of bills, usually up to 5,000.00.

Understandably, the other basketball players know you fell and then they hear an insurance company paid you.

However, for the homeowner to actually be liable, there would have to be fault. In the law, it is called negligence.

An example of negligence would include a homeowner leaving a cord across a dark walk, not covering a hole or warning about it or having a viscous dog.

David B. Peel, an injury attorney, often speaks to churches, clubs and groups without costs. He may be reached at www.PeelLawFirm.com.


Slip and Fall Accidents, Insurance Coverage, and Procedures

Your general liability insurance covers you for your liability that comes from accidents involving bodily injury and property damage.  The most common bodily injury event by the general public (not employees) is "slip and fall."



Someone slips and falls in your parking lot or in your lobby.



You should have a policy for handling such events that is well known by your employees, and that includes:



-Make the person comfortable.



-Be courteous and helpful.



-Allow the injured person to decide whether or not they need medical attention (unless they are unable to communicate as the injuries are so serious).



-Get the person's name.



-Get witness names.



-Do not fill out a form in front of the injured person.



-Record the incident and keep a record of the event including the conditions that were present.  Get pictures after the fact.  The report should include comments made by the injured person about the event ("I only had two beers with lunch," is something that needs to be in the report).



-Never admit fault.



-Never berate or reprimand employees in the presence of the injured person.



-Never share a copy of any report with the injured person or his attorney.



Such events do not need to be reported to your insurance company unless the injuries are so serious that an ambulance is called to the scene.  If the injured party calls you about medical bills (or his attorney contacts you), then report the claim.



It should go without saying that if your lobby is slippery every time it rains, you need to consider a different floor covering.  Putting a "slippery when wet" sign out is NOT risk management.  It is admitting there is a problem and that you have not fixed it.



So-called medical payments insurance is also a part of most general liability insurance policies.  More on that in a future post.

Premera's rate increase disapproved

We've disapproved a request from Premera Blue Cross to increase its individual health plans by 3.1 percent. The company used a medical trend of 7.24 percent to calculate its increase. Medical trend is the change in claims costs over a specific period of time (usually one year) and is often based on both the company's past claims costs and what they expect to spend on claims in the future.

After a careful review of the company's supporting documentation, we don't believe it made its case - specifically, we believe the annual medical trend is likely to be 5.17 percent or less.

The rate was scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2012 and would've impacted 4,039 people.

See if your health plan has filed rate change.

Parents: If you need individual coverage for your children, open enrollment is NOW

Open enrollment for individual health plans started Sept. 15 and runs through Oct. 31. (Individual health plans are those bought by individuals, as opposed to health plans offered by employers or groups.)

We can't say this enough: If you need health insurance for your child, make sure you enroll early. If you miss this open enrollment period, you'll have to wait until March 15, 2012, unless you meet certain qualifications. And if you wait until even the beginning of October, your coverage may not kick in until Nov. 1.

Federal health reform prevents health insurers from denying coverage to children because of a pre-existing health condition. However, just like employer-sponsored health plans, insurers can create open enrollment periods. During these open-enrollment times, children under age 19 do not have to complete a health questionnaire and cannot be denied health insurance.

We should note that there are some exceptions. You can apply for coverage for your child anytime, for example, after the birth or adoption of a child, or when the parent:

  • Is no longer eligible for a state program such as Medicaid.

  • Loses coverage due to a divorce.

  • Loses employer-sponsored coverage (including COBRA coverage).

  • Moves and their plan is not available where they live.

Appeals Court holds insureds should raise public policy issue at arbitration

Congratulations to my friend Marie Cheung-Truslow at Smith & Brink, who just won a nice victory in the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Marie is a fabulous attorney who frequently represents insurers on large loss subrogation matters and in reference proceedings, and who I have often turned to for advice.

Marie's client, Northern Assurance, provided a yacht insurance policy covering a yacht called "Blaze of Glory." The yacht was destroyed in a fire. Fire investigators concluded that the fire was intentionally set and that its point of origin was the Blaze of Glory. (The Appeals Court decision doesn't state whether the yacht's name was a clue in the case.)

The insureds made an insurance claim for the fire loss. They appeared for an examination under oath and provided numerous documents but, according the Northern, not all the documents that were requested. Northern denied coverage on the grounds that the insureds had failed to cooperate. It filed a declaratory judgment complaint. The insureds responded with a demand for arbitration, as they were entitled to do under the policy.

The arbitrator ruled in favor of Northern. The insureds filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator had exceeded her authority and contravened public policy by shifting the burden of proof on the cooperation issue from Northern to the insureds. The trial judge agreed with the insureds and vacated the arbitrator's award.

In Northern Assurance Co. of Am. v. Payzant, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 23 (2011), the Massachusetts Appeals Court overturned the decision of the trial court judge. It held that the insureds had waived their burden-shifting argument by not raising it at arbitration and by affirmatively asserting at arbitration that the burden-shifting clause of the insurance policy applied.

The court held that the proper procedure would have been for the insureds to challenge the legality of the burden-shifting clause of the policy before the arbitrator. The arbitrator would have ruled on this issue, and the right to a judicial determination would have been preserved. Alternatively, the insureds could have refrained from demanding arbitration.

Bad Claims Adjusters

Bad claims adjusters are a plague on all our houses.




Insurance adjusters are to be the front line of the insurance transaction - the part of the transaction that we all buy insurance for - claims service.




Here is a letter sent to the insurance information service, FC&S (National Underwriter Company):







"I am working on a complaint that involves whether the auto liability should pay for damages to a third party. The insured states that her adopted son, age fifteen and holding a driver's permit only, took the family car without permission and was involved in an accident. The adjuster is denying coverage, stating that the car was taken without the parents' permission. My feeling is that the child had access to the keys, which are the liability of the parents, so they should be liable for the damages that were caused. I would like to know what your thoughts are."





There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, in any auto policy I have ever seen that requires that a person have permission to drive a car in order for the insured to be covered for an accident.





This is basic stuff that any adjuster should know.





The auto insurance policy, like any other liability policy, protects the insured from lawsuit.  The fact that the car is taken (or stolen) does not impact coverage for the INSURED.





Think of the grief the insured is going through over this whole event, then they learn that some bone-headed adjuster is saying "no" to coverage.  





Stress times ten.





I hear regularly from insurance buyers who are fighting claims that should be clearly covered by a policy. Yet adjusters, by ignorance (let's assume its that and not bad faith) cause insureds lost time and often sleep.





Insurers, get rid of incompetent adjusters.  Adjusters, read the policies you are adjusting coverage for.  Read insurance books and study the business.





Obviously there are good adjusters out there.  We need more of you.  We also need you to step forward when you see bad actors in your midst.  Get them out of our business.

Alien abduction insurance? Really? Really.

Bloomberg Businessweek's Joel Stonington has put together an interesting slide show of "the oddest insured things", from Bruce Springsteen's voice ($5.7 million) to the hard-working tongue of a British coffee taster ($16 million).

Arguably the most interesting detail, though, is the fact that one insurer apparently offers insurance in case you are abducted by aliens. Stonington notes that the insurer "is currently paying out on a pair of claims deemed legitimate."

See the link above for the slideshow.

Group Health seeks rate hike

Group Health Options has requested a 11.6% rate increase for its small employer plans. The rate is currently under review and if approved, would take effect Jan. 1, 2012. Group Health Cooperative filed a 0% rate change for its small employer plans.

Summaries of all individual and small employer plan rate requests and memos detailing our decisions can be found on our new Web page www.insurance.wa.gov/health-rates.shtml.

We're able to post these requests and the entire rate filings thanks to a bill passed last session (HB 1220). For years, we've heard from consumers upset with the rising costs of their health insurance - and rightly so. Health care costs are rising well above the rate of general inflation. Unfortunately, before this new law, all rate requests were considered proprietary.

If someone contacted us for information, we could only say "trust us, we carefully reviewed the rate change, and it's justified." Not a lot of comfort if you've experienced double-double digit increases year after year.

Now - thanks to this new law - you can see what we see: How your company spent your premium. and how much of it went to pay medical claims, cover administrative costs (including salaries) and how much was profit.

Our authority over these rates is still limited. If the company can justify the change and prove that the rate is reasonable in relation to the benefit the plan provides, then we must accept it. But at least now if you're paying more for your health plan, you know why.

Other insurers with pending rate requests for small or individual health plans include: Asuris Northwest Health, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest, Lifewise Health Plan of Washington, Premera Blue Cross, Providence Health Plan, and Regence BlueShield.

US District Court holds medical review by PIP carrier not required when carrier disputes bill

McGovern Physical Therapy Associates provided physical therapy to a patient insured by Metropolitan for injuries he sustained in an auto accident. It submitted a request for PIP payment of $176 to Metropolitan.

Metropolitan paid McGovern $142.58, $34.42 less than the amount requested. It stated that "the amount allowed is based on provider charges within the provider's geographic region."

McGovern sued on behalf of itself and other providers, seeking reimbursement in all instances in which Metropolitan failed "to challenge the request for payment on its merits."

In McGovern Physical Therapy Assocs., LLC v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co., , the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied McGovern's request to certify the case to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. It held that the plain language of the PIP statute and the opinions of lower courts in Massachusetts "provide sufficient guidance" that its decision will not be "merely conjectural."

The court rejected McGovern's claim that the PIP statute requires review by a licensed practitioner, or a physical examination of the patient, whenever there is a dispute over the reasonableness of the charges. It held that a more plausible reading of the statute is that the review requirement applies only when the insurer denies a claim based upon an alleged lack of medical necessity for the services provided.

Tacoma insurance agent charged with theft

An insurance agent in Tacoma has been charged with theft for misppropriating checks from dozens of policyholders.

Michel Anthony James, an independent contractor working as an agent for State Farm, is believed to have deposited checks from more than 40 policyholders into his own business bank account. State Farm discovered the problems when it audited James' accounts.

Based on a subsequent iinvestigation by Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler's Special Investigations Unit, James:
  •  failed to apply premiums to policies,
  • wrongly withdrew cash from his premium fund account (which is where those policyholder checks were supposed to go),
  • failed to refund overpayments to policyholders,
  • and violated contractual agreements with State Farm.
He has been charged in Pierce County Superior Court with one count of first-degree theft.

Summary Judgment Rule

(Canada) Attorney General v. Ranger, 2011 ON SC 3196

While we wait for the Ontario Court of Appeal to clarify the scope of the new summary judgment rule, the Honourable Justice Power has recently shown a preference for the interpretation of the new Rule 20 that expands the power of the court in making findings of fact.

Various Superior Court of Justice judges have interpreted the changes to Rule 2o differently, some suggesting that it does not give a motions judge the power to make findings of fact for the purpose of deciding an action on the basis of evidence while others (now including Power, J.) suggest that it does allow a motions judge to make findings of fact.

The ultimate resolution of these diverging points of view by the Ontario Court of Appeal will have a significant impact on insurance defence litigation. Often defendants are faced with having to decide whether to go through an expensive trial or just make a "smaller payment" to settle a claim, even where a defendant is fairly sure that there should not be a finding of liability. Given the extraordinary cost of trials, defendants often unfortunately decide to settle even where they should not if they can settle for a small sum and avoid the cost and risk of trial.

The recent decision of Power, J. in (Canada) Attorney General v. Ranger, 2011 ON SC 3196, granted summary judgment to homeowners who were being sued under the Occupier's Liability Act for injuries sustained by a postal worker who had slipped and fallen on ice and snow while delivering mail to their home. The evidence of the homeowners at their examination for discovery was that they had a routine whereby they shoveled snow and salted icy areas when needed. Power, J. found that no further evidence could be put before a trial judge and therefore it was not necessary to proceed to trial. Power, J. then dismissed the action in its entirety.

Defence lawyers and insurers may yet find the new summary judgment rule to be a helpful tool in addressing claims without merit.

NAIC Provides Forum for Ivory Tower Attack on Self-Insurance

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has never been known as an organization where the self-insurance/alternative risk transfer industry is treated fairly, but its penchant for bias became even more visible this past week. Worse yet, this bias is now being fomented by an “ivory tower” expert.

Professor Timothy Stoltzfus Jost is the designated “consumer representative” on the NAIC’s ERISA (B) Subgroup , which is tasked with developing various policy recommendations related to how states should adapt their insurance regulations to better coordinate with PPACA implementation. The esteemed professor is not shy in sharing his opinion that smaller self-insured group health plans, facilitated by stop-loss insurance, should be made extinct.

During the Workgroup’s last conference call, Professor Jost presented a formal statement entitled The Affordable Care Act and Stop-Loss Insurance. This scholarly work was quite the hit piece on self-insurance disguised with big words, extensive footnoting and misleading legal references.

His central thesis is that smaller employers should not be allowed to self-insure because they do so primarily to escape state regulation, and going forward to sidestep new PPACA regulation. He also pushes the dubious argument that self-insured plans contribute to adverse selection (see my earlier blog post on this subject).

Virtually all of Professor Jost’s points can and will be rebutted privately and publicly as this NAIC policy development process moves forward, but first let’s take some time to consider the source.

He is currently a law professor at the Washington and Lee University of Law, with multiple other academic appointments dating back to 1979. Along the way, he has written several books and academic papers on the subject of health care with titles such as The Threats Facing our Public Health Care Programs and a Rights-Based Response; and Health Care at Risk: a Critique of the Consumer-Driven Movement.

And by the way, he is a graduate of the University of California at Santa Cruz. In case you are not familiar with this school, it makes U.C. Berkley look like a bastion of conservatism.

So what about private sector experience over his 35 year career? You guessed it, zero. How about past experience as a regulator who at least could interact with the private sector? No again. What we have here is the classic liberal elite academic who looks at the world through prisms of theory and ideology.

Professor Jost holds himself out to be a patient’s rights advocate and clearly views the NAIC as a forum to present his “ivory tower” perspective. OK fine, there’s certainly room for a diversity of qualified opinions as part of the policy development process.

The problem is that while Professor Jost may well have valid perspectives to contribute on true consumer (patient) protection issues, he’s out of his league in commenting on how health care delivery should be financed.

Moreover, if he was truly concerned about the ability of individuals to receive quality, affordable health care, Professor Jost should actually be a proponent of self-insured health plans (regardless of size) because these plans generally do a better job on both counts as compared to the fully-insured marketplace.

It appears the professor is in need of some timely continuing education.

RRG Legislation Snagged by Dodd-Frank Creation

After some initial good progress in moving federal legislation to modernize the Liability Risk Retention Act (LRRA), a new rhetorical roadblock has been raised.

The Risk Retention Modernization Act (H.R. 2126) includes a dispute resolution provision whereby RRGs who believe they are being illegally regulated in non-domiciliary states can access the equivalent of a federal arbitration process as an alternative to initiating costly legal action.

An earlier version of the legislation provided that this dispute resolution mechanism would be administered within the Treasury Department due to technical jurisdiction requirements, but left discretion Treasury to fit this function in as part their exiting organizational chart.

Fast forward to the recent passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, which among other things created a new Federal Insurance Office (FIO) to be housed within the Treasury Department. As a result of this development, the current version of the legislation specifically designates FIO as the entity responsible to arbitrate RRG disputes with state regulators.

Supporters of the legislation have always known that there would be some push back in Congress from members concerned that such a dispute resolution would infringe on the authority of state insurance regulators. Of course, the opposite is actually true and this position has gained traction in recent months.

But just as the policy argument has largely been settled, at least one member of Congress key to the legislation’s eventual message has raised a new concern. In a meeting earlier this week to discuss the legislation, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL), chairwoman of the House Subcommittee of Capital Markets within the House Financial Services Committee, voiced strong concerns about this new responsibility assigned to the FIO.

Her objection was not really specific to RRG regulation, but rather reflects a broader view held by many Republicans that the FIO is being given too much authority. In hindsight, this objection was not particularly surprising.

While PPACA has garnered the lion share of public attention for those critical of government expanding its regulatory reach, the distaste for Dodd-Frank is significant among most Republican members of Congress. As a result, any manifestation of this law, such as the FIO, can spark a reflexive push back as demonstrated by Rep. Biggert’s comments.

It is important to note that this new wrinkle does not mean that H.R. 2126 cannot pass. The lobbying process on Capitol Hill is inherently complicated and this is just the latest example.

In the end, if the case can be made that the practical advantages this legislation offers to small and mid-sized companies trump more abstract political concerns, the LRRA will be successfully modernized.

Stay tuned for additional inside reports on how this legislation is progressing on Capitol Hill.

Regulatory Overreach Compromises Workplace Safety Initiatives

In case you had any doubt that the current public debate over the scope of federal regulation is more about political ideology rather than practical reality, look no further than OSHA’s ramped up oversight of workplace safety issues.

Now on the surface, this may sound like a laudable focus because almost everyone agrees that there is a role for government in making sure that sensible workplace safety standards are established and adhered to. But of course, in this current political climate Obama regulators just don’t know when to say when.

Specifically, OSHA has recently started to subpoena workplace safety audits prepared by workers’ compensation self-insurers and insurance carriers. Keep in mind that that these audits are prepared on voluntary basis so that employers/insurers are better able to proactively address any safety deficiencies that may exist. Such audits are particularly important tools for workers’ compensation self-insurers because they “own” every dollar saved on payments to injured workers.

Historically, OSHA has not attempted to access such audits because everyone understood that employers would likely stop preparing these risk management tools if they could be used against them in regulatory enforcement and/or legal proceedings.

This precedence has been overturned by a recent federal district court ruling stating that OSHA does have the right to subpoena safety audits and related documentation. Specifically, the ruling in the case of Solis v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company concluded that audit subpoena are generally enforceable if:

1) They reasonably relate to an investigation within OSHA’s authority;
2) The requested documents are relevant to OSHA’s investigation;
3) The request is not too vague
4) Proper administrative procedures have been followed; and
5) The subpoena does not demand information for an “illegitimate purpose”

According to OSHA’s internal policy regarding voluntary self-audits, the agency will not “routinely” request such audits at the beginning of an inspection, or use the audits to identify hazards to inspect.
But now with a favorable court ruling in their back pocket, it’s very reasonable to expect that OSHA regulators will, in fact, make safety audit subpoenas a routine part of their investigative process.

Of course, and ironically, the real victims are the workers as many employers are likely to curtail such formal audits in response to OSHA’s invasive zeal. Another classic example of “no good deed goes unpunished” apparently embraced by this administration.

Small-business health insurance tax credits: key deadlines and tips

If you're a small business that provides health coverage for employees -- or wants to -- a couple of key deadlines for taking advantage of tax credits are coming up soon.

From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
If you have up to 25 employees, pay average annual wages below $50,000, and provide health insurance, you may qualify for a small business tax credit of up to 35% (up to 25% for non-profits) to offset the cost of your insurance. This will bring down the cost of providing insurance.

In order to take advantage of these tax credits, you must file by a certain date. Here are two important tax filing deadlines in coming weeks that you should be aware of:
  • September 15. Corporations that file on a calendar year basis and requested an extension to file to September 15 can calculate the small employer health care credit on Form 8941 and claim it as part of the general business credit on Form 3800, which they would include with their corporate income tax return.
  • October 17. Sole proprietors who file Form 1040 and partners and S-corporation shareholders who report their income on Form 1040 have until October 17 to complete their returns. They would also use Form 8941 to calculate the small employer health care credit and claim it as a general business credit on Form 3800, reflected on line 53 of Form 1040.
Important tips:
  • Even if you've already filed your 2010 taxes, you can still claim the credit. Just file an amended 2010 return.
  • Even if you don't have tax liability this year, you can still benefit, since eligible small businesses can carry back the tax credit five years. (It used to be that you could carry back general business credits like this just one year.)
  • Businesses that couldn't use the credit in 2010 can claim it in future years. 
See the link above for more details and specifics.

Accidents

What to Do After an Accident

You thought they were going to stop.

They pulled right out like you were not there. There was no way you could avoid them.

You may have found yourself in this situation before. After an accident, people are stunned, injured, scared. Massive amounts of adrenaline dull pain in what is known the “fight or flight” response.

Post accident response in a serious collision is one of the things that you need to think through now, because at the time it is unlikely you will be thinking as clearly.

Here are steps you can take:

1. It is usually recommended that you stay in the car unless there is actual fire or burning or someone else is in immediate jeopardy. (The whitish powdery smoke you will see is from the airbags, more than likely, and is not dangerous.) Cars rarely catch on fire, but it can happen. Be careful, as many people are hit as pedestrians by passing motorists after an accident.

2. Dial 911. It is best that an ambulance with trained first responders evaluate everyone involved. Self-diagnosis after such an impact is difficult and even dangerous. Especially in cases of undiagnosed head or spinal trauma, permanent damage can be done by movement.

3. If you or another are able and out of the car, take cell phone photos of the scene. This proves the arrangement in case the cars are moved before police investigate. Do not get into fault discussions with the other parties.

4. Do accept treatment and recommendations from first responders. They are in a much better position to decide what you might require. Transport to a good Emergency Room, not necessary the closest, is desirable.

5. Follow up with general doctors and specialists as you require. The “muscle tightness” after the wreck is likely to be severe pain in the days following.

6. Contact your insurance company; and consult an injury attorney to discuss your right and responsibilities, if you believe you were not at fault.

Much like having a fire drill, these steps should be thought through before it happens. The Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that 37,313 people were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2008. Motor vehicle collisions the leading cause of injury death among children worldwide 10 – 19 years old (260,000 children die a year, 10 million are injured) and the sixth leading preventable cause of death in the United States (45,800 people died and 2.4 million were injured in 2005). Odds are good that you will be in at least one crash during your lifetime.

You will have an idea of what to do if that happens.

David B. Peel is a local injury attorney who assists victims of car and truck accidents. Mr. Peel often speaks to civic clubs, churches, Sunday Schools, and other groups without charge. He may be reached at www.PeelLawFirm.com wherein other article may be found as well.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...