Healthcare Reform Act: Understanding the Provisions Already in Effect

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into law on March 23, 2010. Since then, the government has issued many pages of guidance on how to interpret the law. Implementation of some provisions have been delayed until the government can issue further guidance, so there continues to be uncertainty about the full impact of this historic legislation.

The uncertainty has intensified recently due to the November 2010 election, which changed control of the House of Representatives. The first order of business in the House appears to be an effort to repeal PPACA.

Since it is unclear what the future of PPACA will be, this article will focus on the provisions that have already gone into effect, and how group health plans will be changing in 2011.

Some of the main provisions of Health Care Reform, or HCR, as those of us in an industry with a fascination for acronyms are now calling it, were effective six months from the date President Obama signed the bill, or September 23, 2010. The provisions apply to group health plans, as well as health insurance companies offering group and individual health insurance coverage, on the first day of the plan year beginning on or after September 23, 2010. Therefore, employers with group health plans that renewed on from October 1, 2010 – January 1, 2011, are already subject to the provisions.

The first question an employer will need to answer in determining which of the main provisions apply to its health plan is whether the health plan can be considered “grandfathered” under the rules of HCR. A grandfathered plan is one that was in existence on March 23, 2010. In addition, the regulations specify the plan design changes made after March 23^rd which would result in a plan losing its grandfathered status.

There are restrictions on any increase to the cost-sharing (coinsurance) percentage employees are required to pay for health services, as well as limited allowable increases to deductibles and copayments and amounts that employees are required to contribute for health premiums.

Being grandfathered, however, does not exempt a plan from many of the HCR provisions. And the grandfather exemption lasts only as long as the plan complies with regulations governing the allowable plan changes.

Following are the main provisions of HCR that were effective September 23, 2010, and an indication of whether they apply to grandfathered plans:

1. Health plan coverage for dependent children. Dependent children, up to the age of 26, are eligible for coverage without regard to residency or marital, student or financial status. A grandfathered plan is subject to this provision; however, a grandfathered plan may deny eligibility for a dependent who is eligible to enroll in their own employer-sponsored group plan.
2. Preventive Care. Certain preventive services must be covered without charging a deductible, copayment or coinsurance when provided by a network provider. The types of preventive services covered are those with a rating of A or B in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Grandfathered plans are not subject to this provision.
3. Lifetime Limits. There can be no lifetime limits on essential health benefits. Grandfathered plans are subject to this provision.
4. Pre-existing Condition Exclusion. There can be no pre-existing condition exclusion applied to children under the age of 19. The law calls for the elimination of all pre-existing condition exclusions in 2014. Grandfathered plans are subject to this provision.
5. New Internal Claims Appeals and External Review Procedures. PPACA requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage to implement an effective internal claims and appeals process for the determination of benefit claims, and also requires the establishment of state and federal external review processes to review benefit claim denials.

One additional provision of HCR that was effective on January 1, 2011 is the elimination of reimbursements for non-prescribed over-the-counter (OTC) drugs through health care flexible spending accounts or health savings accounts.

It is very unlikely the provisions listed above will be reversed, even if repeal efforts are successful. The most uncertainty surrounds the individual and employer mandates, which are scheduled to go into effect in 2014. Stay tuned as we see how many of the original provisions of PPACA are implemented in the years ahead.

For more information, please contact:

Ramona Fiumara

VP & COO - Seitlin Benefits

Tel:  954.903.1622

Email:  rfiumara@seitlin.com

Seitlin Team Member "Feature"

Risk Management Team Member: Barbi Schoepp, Senior Workers' Compensation Claims Consultant

Behind the success of every company, there are hard working individuals that devote endless time and effort to servicing clients more effectively. For this newsletter publication, Seitlin focuses on associate Barbi Schoepp.

Q:  Tell us a little about yourself.
A:  I began my career in 1982 with Lumbermen’s Underwriting Alliance as a multi-state claims adjuster for 10 years.  In 1993, I joined Continental Insurance in Ft. Lauderdale where I was employed as a multi-state claims adjuster; subsequently supervising a staff of adjuster’s.  I left the insurance carrier side in 1995, and joined Interim Services Inc., a large staffing employer as a claims manager for 5 years.   Taking my claims experience and knowledge from the perspective of the employer and the insurance carrier’s perspective, I joined Seitlin in March of 2000.
 
Q:  What is your role at Seitlin?
A:  I am the Senior Claims Consultant for Seitlin.  My primary role is acting as an advocate for the employer to effectively manage workers’ compensation claims.  I provide ongoing counseling and advice to employers on how to best manage difficult or questionable workers compensation claims.  I also attend State Mediations with the employer’s and provide claims analysis on large open claims.  In addition, I provide education and training to employer’s on return to work policy and procedures.   Part of my role is to oversee the insurance carriers performance to verify the adjusters are providing prompt and proper claim closures and organize claim reviews.
 
Q:  What are a few important issues companies overlook when dealing with a WC injury, which may cost the employer in the long run?
A:  1. Not utilizing a medical history questionnaire to determine if they have had prior injuries after an offer of employment has been extended to the applicant.
2. Too many employers allow their involvement in the workers' compensation claim to end after they send the employee to the doctor. Stay in contact with the injured worker and the claims adjuster who is handling the claim.
3. Not staying informed when the claim is litigated. They should attend Mediations and be involved in pre-settlement discussions.


Q:  What are 3 things companies can do to be more proactive with it comes to mitigating WC claims and indirect costs?
A:  1. Promptly report and investigate all claims. Strive to adhere to a 0 - 3 day lag time reporting policy.
2. Offer transitional duty as soon as the injured worker is released to return to work. This will mitigate the indirect hidden costs such as lost time from work, productivity and hiring and training.
3. Notify the claims adjuster if you believe the claim is suspicious or that the worker may have had a prior injury.

Q:  What are the benefits of having a designated Workers Compensation consultant on hand?
A:  Assist employer's with managing their workers compensation claims. Having someone available to offer guidance when you have a difficult or questionable claim. Helping employer's decide when to offer transitional duty or attempt settlement of a claim.  Review the current open claims for reserve accuracy. The most important date is eighteen months after the inception of the policy. You want to be sure the claim reserves are not too high or you may be overcharged for this policy year.

For more information, please contact

Barbi Schoepp
Sr. WC Claims Consultant
Tel:  954.267.8607
Email:  bschoepp@seitlin.com

Employees Holding Outside Board Positions: Do You Know the Risks?

Excerpts taken from:
A Chubb Special Report:  Outside Position Liability Loss Prevention
By: Dan A. Bailey, Esq.

Many companies frequently request their directors, officers, and employees to serve other organizations in various capacities (an “Outside Position”). These requests by a company can arise in numerous situations, including the following:

• The company wishes to support a charitable organization by placing a representative on the charity’s board of trustees;
• The company has a significant investment in another company and wishes to actively oversee the affairs of that portfolio company by having a representative serve on the portfolio company’s board of directors;
• The company is a member of a trade association and wishes to be proactively involved in the association’s activities by placing a representative on the association’s working committees;
• A parent company wishes to actively manage or oversee a subsidiary company by designating a representative to serve as either a director or officer of the subsidiary;
• In order to encourage good stewardship and develop leadership skills, the company encourages its employees to be active volunteers and leaders in community organizations.

Although requesting its directors, officers, and employees to serve in these types of Outside Positions can be beneficial to both the company and the individual, this practice can create potentially significant liability exposures for both the individuals serving in the Outside Position and the company that requests the individual’s service in the Outside Position. These exposures are some of the most commonly overlooked personal and entity exposures within a company.

Service in an Outside Position is troublesome not only because of the numerous liability exposures faced by any director or officer, but also because of several liability theories uniquely applicable to Outside Position claims. In addition, with increasing frequency, plaintiffs are realizing that persons who serve in Outside Positions can be lucrative litigation targets since they may have access to indemnification from the company that requested them to serve in the Outside Position in addition to indemnification from the outside organization. Plus, in some situations a direct claim may be asserted against the requesting company based on its ability to influence the person serving in the Outside Position. As a result, plaintiffs often now investigate whether a defendant director or officer is serving in that position at the request of another company and, if so, pursue the additional legal claims and deep pockets that are implicated by that individual’s service in the Outside Position.

Difficult and surprising indemnification issues arise with respect to financially protecting persons who serve in Outside Positions. These issues should be identified and addressed when the outside service commences, not when allegations of wrongdoing are made, since it may be too late then to provide the maximum protection. When evaluating and planning for Outside Position indemnification, the indemnification rights and obligations of both the outside entity and the requesting company must be considered.

When designing an appropriate Outside Position indemnification provision, a company must balance the legitimate interests of the company to avoid unintended indemnification liabilities in light of the broad Outside Position indemnification statute, on the one hand, and the legitimate desire of the person serving in the Outside Position to obtain maximum financial protection for that outside service, on the other hand. Ultimately, that balance may be best achieved by implementing a formalized Outside Position Program, and linking the corporation’s Outside Position indemnification obligations in its internal indemnification documents to that formal Outside Position Program.

Before accepting an Outside Position, a copy of the outside entity’s D&O liability insurance policies should be requested and the assistance of a knowledgeable advisor should be utilized to evaluate the quality of the coverage and the adequacy of the limits of liability afforded by that insurance program. Equally important is the D&O liability insurance coverage afforded by the requesting company. Absent special provisions in the requesting company’s D&O policies, claims against directors and officers for wrongful acts while serving in an Outside Position are not typically covered under the requesting company’s policy since service in the Outside Position would be in an uninsured capacity. However, many, but not all, D&O policies include special provisions that extend coverage for insured persons who serve in certain types of Outside Positions under certain circumstances. The scope of coverage afforded by those provisions can vary greatly among policies.

Companies should be mindful to manage the risks associated with their directors, officers, and employees serving at the company’s request in an Outside Position with another entity. That service can create unique and acute liability exposures for the persons serving in the Outside Position as well as for the requesting company. However, those exposures can be managed if prudent procedures are implemented and if appropriate indemnification and insurance protections are maintained. Please contact your Seitlin insurance consultant for assistance in assuring that you have the correct provisions in place for directors, officers, and employees serving in “Outside Positions”.

For more information, contact:

Eric Donahoe

COO & Chief Marketing Officer

Tel:  305.513.5958

Email:  edonahoe@seitlin.com

OSHA’s Workplace Initiatives and How They Will Impact You

There is an old Bob Dylan song that goes “The Times They Are a Changing.”

Well for employers, when it comes to workplace safety, we can add that “The Times They Have Changed.” Under President Obama’s leadership and as part of a longer-term enforcement strategy, Occupational Health and Safety Issues have been given new life and greater prominence in the American workplace. OSHA’s personnel, who for many years shied away from enforcement and focused on education, participation, consultation and training to effect change in the workplace, are now being re-programmed to return to the foundation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act i.e., enforcement of rules and regulations.

While some may argue with the wisdom or even the merit of such an action, the reality is that for the next few years, employers can expect stronger enforcement of the OSHA rules.

David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of labor, has outlined some ambitious and yes, aggressive plans to change the face of occupational health and safety in the United States. Since his appointment, Mr. Michaels has not wasted any time in letting employers and any interested parties know about his plans to, in his words, ”Bring OSHA into the 21st Century.”

The following is a brief summary of some of the important changes:

1. Increased enforcement.

In support of this goal, Department of Labor FY 2010 budget request included provisions to increase the budget to allow for the hiring of approximately 160 additional compliance staff. In Mr. Michaels view, insufficient resources were being directed to enforcement inspections. He has already directed his staff to reassign some VPP (Voluntary Protection Programs) personnel to the enforcement program in an effort to achieve his enforcement goals.

2. Increased Penalties

In his testimony on “Workforce Protection” to the US House of Representatives on March 16, 2010; Mr. Michaels indicated that while OSHA has been around for over 40 years, monetary penalties for violation of the act had only increased once and that the current average OSHA penalty was $1,000.00, which in his view was not a sufficient deterrent to employers who would violate the regulations. He went on to say “the maximum civil penalty OSHA may impose… even when the death is caused by a willful violation of an OSHA requirement — is $70,000.” By contrast, he argued that the Environmental Protection Agency can impose a penalty of $270,000 for violations of the Clean Air Act.

Employers can take some comfort that given the recent changes in the political landscape in Washington, it is highly unlikely that congress will give approval to increasing the maximum fines. However OSHA is undaunted, within the existing rules they have already increased individual fines, instructed inspectors not to negotiate fines down and to look to existing regulation to issue per-employee fines for specified violations. In short the fines have and are increasing compared to historical norms.

3. Increased Scrutiny of OSHA 300 Record Keeping Logs: Employers beware 2011 will be Record Keeping Inspection Year!

OSHA compliance directive 10-07 (CPL 02) became effective September 28, 2010. The purpose of this directive was to officially place the subject of Injury and Illness Recordkeeping under the purview of the National Emphasis Program (NEP). The special emphasis is scheduled to run through February 2012.

Given that recordkeeping has been around for as long as the Occupational Safety and Health Act, one could reasonably ask why it should now be classified under the NEP. After all, NEP is normally reserved for industries or issues that cause a high rate of injuries or illnesses. Well, the short answer is that there has been a long held suspicion that the injury illness data entered yearly on the OSHA logs were inaccurate.

This suspicion was confirmed with the release of a study conducted by the GAO (Government Accountability Office) to determine the accuracy of employer injury illness records (300 and 301 logs) concluded that there were significant inaccuracies and under-reporting in the data collected. Some of the reasons for these inaccuracies cited in the GAO report included worker and employer disincentives e.g., employers were concerned about the impact of workers compensation frequency and severity rates on their insurance cost and some employees were fearful of job loss if they reported injuries. Added to these was the lack of understanding of OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements by many employers.

The findings were disturbing given that OSHA and the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) rely on this information to target employers in high hazard industries for enforcement activities, outreach, technical assistance and to measure their overall performance in reducing workplace injuries and illnesses.

Among the many recommendations of the report was that OSHA should take action to force companies to improve the accuracy of workplace injury and illness data recording and update the list of high hazard industries used to select worksites for recordkeeping reviews. Thus, as a result of the findings of the report, the Injury and Illness Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program directive was issued. Therefore the likelihood that your establishments will be visited by enforcement officials in 2011 has increased, markedly, especially for those industries newly included in the updated list (BLS SNR02 tables for 2007 and 2008). See Appendix A. The Office of Statistical Analysis (OSA) will supply each OSHA area office with a list of establishments to be slated for recordkeeping enforcement action.

The focus of the NEP will primarily be on manufacturing industries a DART (Days Away, Restricted or Transferred) rate ranging from 4.2 to 8. A DART rate is computed using the formula – (N/EH) x (200,000) where N is the number of cases involving days away y from work and or restricted work activity, and or work transfer. EH is the total number of hours worked by all employees during a calendar year. 200,000 is the number of hours worked for 100 full-time equivalent employees.

What will they do when they come?

Opening conferenceHere the compliance officer will distribute an explanatory letter outlining the purpose and scope of the record inspection and verify the employer’s NAICS code. See Appendix B for sample letter.

Data review

The compliance officer will conduct a comprehensive review of employee record to identify any injuries illnesses that may have occurred during the review period i.e; 2008 and 2009 calendar year. Payroll/absentee records, medical record, alternate duty rosters and disciplinary action reports related to injuries/accidents will be included in the review.

Determination of sample size of employee records to be reviewed

For establishments with 100 and fewer employees, all employee records will be reviewed; establishments with 101-250 will have 50% of the records reviewed and for establishments with more that 250, 33% of the records will be reviewed

Selected records to be reviewed

The compliance officer will review all pertinent records for each employee selected and compare the cases with those appearing on the OSHA 300 log for accuracy. If the employer uses an outside clinic for medical treatment, the compliance officer will visit that facility to review pertinent records.

Interview of Designated Recordkeeper

The compliance officer will interview the designated recordkeeper to determine their knowledge of the injuries and illnesses recording requirements. Any discovery of disincentives to the accurate recording of injuries/illnesses will be noted.

Employee Interviews

A sub-sample of employees will be interviewed using a supplied employee questionnaire. For establishments with less than 100 employees, at least 10 employees; establishments with 101-250, 15 employees and establishment with 250 or more employees, interview with at least 20 employees. Here too, if the compliance officer learns of any actions by the employer that could be construed as a disincentive, it must be documented.

Conduct Management Interviews

Interviews will be conducted with management to determine any practices or procedures that could act as a disincentive to the accurate recording of injuries and illnesses. They will probe to see to what extent management may have influenced or discourage employees from seeking medical attention or reporting injuries and illnesses. Here too, all negative actions will be documented.

Interviews with First Aid Providers and Health Care Professionals

The compliance officer will interview individuals who provide medical or first aid treatment to determine whether illness and injury data is being recorded consistently and they are being unduly influenced by management in their efforts to accurately report data.

Walkaround Inspection – Employers take Note!

A limited workplace inspection will be conducted with each NEP recordkeeping visit. While the focus will primarily be on issues related to recordkeeping, any violation of the OSHA standards noted will be addressed through normal enforcement protocol. Beware anything in plain view could trigger enforcement action and therefore a citation. Money out of your pocket and time from running your business.

Closing Conference

The compliance officer will conclude their visit with the customary closing conference where they will discuss their findings in both the record review and the walkaround inspection.

Citations

Employers will not be cited for over-reporting of cases.

Violations of the recordkeeping regulations will be classified as “other-than-serious.” Violations classified as “willful,” “repeat,” or “failure to abate,” will be sent to the regional administrator for action.

Closer scrutiny of recordkeeping data has already begun in Florida as the following report will attest:

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed $66,500 in penalties against Florida Crystals Corporation's South Bay, Fla., production facility after uncovering 15 violations of OSHA standards. The one other-than-serious citation, with proposed penalties totaling $3,000, is for the company's failure to maintain separate injury logs for each of its establishments in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

In conclusion, employers be forewarned that the “The Times They are a Changing” but all is not lost as Seitlin offers Seitlin 360° Online, an online risk management resource center that in addition to providing powerful risk management tools assists in maintaining your OSHA 300 logs quickly and easily.

Sources:

"10-07 (CPL 02) - Injury and Illness Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (RK NEP)." Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2011. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=4629.


"Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health Meeting." Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2011. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=SPEECHES&p_id=2070.


Topic. "OASAM News Release: Secretary Hilda L. Solis unveils U.S. Department of LaborÂ’s budget for fiscal year 2010 [05/07/2009]." The U.S. Department of Labor Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2011. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/oasam/OASAM20090489.htm.


"U.S. GAO - Workplace Safety and Health: Enhancing OSHA's Records Audit Process Could Improve the Accuracy of Worker Injury and Illness Data." U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2011. .

For more information, please contact:

Ryland Thompson, CSP, ARM, CSHM, CHSP, MS

Directory of Safety & Loss Control

Tel:  954.903.1609

Email:  rthompson@seitlin.com

Wage & Hour Claims - An Overview

So-called “wage and hour claims” usually arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA], a federal law requiring most employers in the United States to comply with minimum wage and hour, as well as other, standards. In addition, other causes of action may arise under similar, but more employee-friendly state statutes. More detailed information about FLSA may be found at a U.S. Department of Labor website maintained by the Wage and Hour Division: http://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/

Wage and hour violations are a significant and increasing exposure for employers today, with the number of wage and hour claims now exceeding discrimination claims. This trend is problematic for employers because litigating wage and hour claims can be very expensive. For example, a prevailing plaintiff may, depending on the statutory basis for the claim in question, recover double the actual damages, plus attorney’s fees.

Exposure to these claims is not limited to large employers. In fact, the impact upon smaller companies with limited financial resources may more devastating. In one recent case, a single employee recovered a six-figure settlement because he meticulously documented the time he spent "on call". In contrast, his employer failed to properly utilize time cards or otherwise document hours worked.

Typical FLSA Violations Alleged by Employees

 

Wage and hour claims are often based on an employers alleged failure to pay overtime to "nonexempt” employees however, there are numerous other bases for wage and hour claims. These may include:

• Relying on the misconception that salaried employees are automatically classified as "exempt" and not eligible for overtime pay
• Not properly paying employees for all overtime, i.e., compensation for hours worked in excess of 8 hours in a given day or more than 40 hours in a week
• Misclassifying employees as independent contractors and not paying them overtime
• Miscalculating the amount of wages owed, e.g., applying the wrong rate, improperly crediting tips, etc.
• Not paying qualified employees for time they are "on call"
• Requiring employees to work "off the clock" e.g., not paying for time spent on opening tasks or closing duties, or time worked before and after the official workday, or for time spent donning uniforms or attending seminars
• Not allowing employees to take meal or rest breaks
• Not paying all wages due and owing at the time of termination
• Docking exempt employees' salaries for absences

Insuring Against the Wage and Hour Claim Exposure

 

It’s clear that wage and hour claims are directly tied to employment-related practices and are therefore best covered to the extent possible by an Employment Practices Liability Insurance [EPLI] policy. There is however an important qualification; coverage currently available is very limited and the entire wage and hour exposure can’t be covered. A more detailed discussion of the major EPLI coverage-related issues follows.

EPLI - The Wage and Hour Exclusion

To begin, please note that other liability policies commonly purchased by employers, e.g. CGL, WC / EL, D&O Liability, likely won’t cover this exposure, either because the insuring agreements aren’t triggered or various exclusions apply. For a more in-depth discussion of these policies in the context of Employment Practices Liability, please review Employment Practices Liability Insurance In A Nutshell, Seitlin Newsletter, Volume I, Issue 1.

Turning to EPLI, even limited coverage for wage and hour claims is a relatively new phenomenon. EPLI policies typically included and continue to include an express Wage and Hour Exclusion. Assuming an EPLI policy can be triggered by establishing a covered Wrongful Employment Practice, the exclusions operate to eliminate coverage.

The Exclusions tend to be “total” exclusions in that coverage for damages and defense costs is excluded, e.g.:

The Underwriters shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in connection with or resulting from any Claim ... for an alleged violation of the responsibilities, duties or obligations imposed on an Insured under any Wage and Hour Law.

"Wage and Hour Law" means any federal, state or local law governing or relating to the payment of wages including the payment of overtime, on-call time, rest periods, minimum wages or the classification of employees for the purpose of determining employees' eligibility for compensation or other benefits under such law(s) including any statutory or common law premised on such law.

"Loss" means money which an Insured is legally obligated to pay as a result of a Claim including compensatory damages, judgments (including prejudgment and post judgment interest awarded against an Insured on that part of any judgment paid by Underwriters), back pay, front pay, settlements, statutory attorney fees, Defense Costs and punitive, exemplary and multiple damages where insurable by law in the applicable jurisdiction most favoring coverage for punitive, exemplary or multiple damages.

Wage and Hour Coverage Endorsements - A Limited Grant of Coverage

 

Recently, some insurers have been willing to offer limited coverage for wage and hour claims. Given the virtually universal use by insurers of Wage and Hour Exclusions, the limited grant of coverage is added via endorsement to the policy. The endorsements operate to modify the Exclusions to the extent desired by the insurer.

These Wage and Hour Coverage Endorsements are not standard forms, but do tend to have key characteristics in common:

1. The endorsements are written to apply only to Defense Costs. Other elements of “Loss” are not covered.

2. Coverage is provided as a sublimit, not in addition to a per claim or aggregate limit.

3. These sublimits tend to be substantially less than the “per claim” limit applying to covered claims, usually $50,000 - $250,000.

4. The coverage is subject to the policy deductible, if any.

5. Other exclusions, e.g. Known Prior Acts, may apply to negate coverage.

Given the non-standard nature of these endorsements, it’s important for any prospective purchaser to review the policy and endorsement in question before coverage is bound. That is the only way to conclusively determine what is covered and what is excluded.

Other Risk Management Considerations

 

It’s apparent that EPLI is at best a partial solution to managing wage and hour-related risk. The other, perhaps more important, consideration is risk avoidance. If employment-related policies, practices and procedures are in compliance with the controlling law, the employer’s exposure should be substantially reduced or eliminated.

A detailed review of the law, and suggestions for drafting sound employment-related policies, practices and procedures, is beyond the scope of this overview and not within an insurance agent’s scope of expertise. Recognizing the complexity of these issues, we routinely advise our clients to consult with an attorney who specializes in employment-related law for assistance in devising and implementing state of the art policies, practices and procedures in this context. Review of policies, practices and procedures in light of the law should be continuous and ongoing, with modification and revision as needed. That is optimal from a risk management perspective

As an added benefit, having appropriate policies, practices and procedures in place provides an excellent basis for discussions with underwriters willing to insure an EPL wage and hour exposure. However, in any case, Seitlin agents are prepared to assist clients and prospects with review of existing EPLI coverage, development of a more comprehensive EPLI program, marketing of an EPLI submission and purchase of EPLI coverage appropriate to the insured’s unique circumstances. Please contact your Seitlin agent for more information.

For more information, please contact:

Grant Schuetz

VP Claims & Risk Management

Tel:  561.445.5847

gschuetz@seitlin.com