Ask Tim

2 Minutes With Tim: Decals

Does the Physical Damage Coverage under a Business Auto Policy cover the cost of replacing a damaged vehicle's decals?

Download 2 Minutes With Tim - Decals

Leave a Comment

Missouri Workers' Comp Insurer Gets It Right

Accident Fund reverses stance, gives workers comp benefits to Joplin, Mo., hero

October 24, 2011 - 1:54pm

JOPLIN, Mo.—Accident Fund Insurance Co. of America is reversing its denial of workers compensation benefits for a Joplin, Mo., man deemed a hero for saving three men with Down syndrome from the Joplin tornado.

According to a widely reported Associated Press story, Mark Lindquist suffered broken ribs, a shoulder injury, the loss of most of his teeth and spent about two months in a coma after 200 mph winds tossed him nearly a block.

A Missouri Senate resolution hailed him as a “true hero” for helping protect the three middle-aged men living in a group home that had no basement.

On May 22, Mr. Lindquist and a co-worker placed mattresses over the three men and then laid atop the mattresses to help

via www.businessinsurance.com

This is a very heartening development in a story of bravery and tragedy. A Missouri social worker almost died trying to protect three developmentally-disabled men during the horrific Joplin tornado last May. His employer's Workers' Compensation insurer initially determined that he was ineligible for benefits under state law. The carrier has now reversed that decision and will pay his millions of dollars in medical expenses.

Did the insurer change its mind because the Associated Press ran a story in newspapers across the country about the man's predicament? Perhaps. Whatever its motivations, the important thing is that the carrier is providing the necessary benefits. In America, we don't let heroes go bankrupt simply because they did the honorable thing. Three cheers to the carrier for seeing it that way.

Leave a Comment

Ask Tim, Episode #25 -- Employers' Liability

In the long list of commercial insurance coverages, Employers' Liability doesn't get a whole lot of attention. Part One of the Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance Policy gets the spotlight because most of the losses the policy covers are payments due under the relevant Workers' Compensation law. However, most employers have at least some exposure to employee injury and disease losses that Workers' Compensation doesn't address. This episode of Ask Tim takes a look at this neglected coverage and the New York-specific wrinkles that producers need to be aware of.

The highlights:

• Employers' Liability covers the insured's legal liability for bodily injury to employees, other than injuries or diseases that are compensable under the Workers' Compensation law
• Coverage applies only if:
  • The injury arises out of and in the course of the injured worker's employment
  • The employment is necessary or incidental to the insured's work
  • The bodily injury by accident occurs during the policy term
  • The bodily injury by disease must be caused by or aggravated by conditions of employment
  • The employee's last day of last exposure to the conditions causing or aggravating the disease occurs during the policy term
  • The worker brings the lawsuit in the U.S.A., its territories or possessions, or Canada
• E.L. Coverage is unlimited for losses resulting from employments covered by the New York Workers' Compensation Law.
• The limits shown in the policy declarations apply to losses resulting from employments not covered by the New York Workers' Compensation Law.

 

Download Ask Tim Episode #25

 

 

Leave a Comment

'Where You Reside' Redux

In case any of you thought that the alarm I sounded in episode #21 of the podcast (which described a potentially major coverage gap in the ISO Homeowners policy) was theoretical, take a look at a New York trial court's September 27 opinion in the case of Josma v. Interboro Insurance Co.:

Plaintiff alleges that she entered into a contract on or about June 9, 2010 with Nubia to perform work, labor, and services, and to furnish materials, in connection with the addition of a second story onto plaintiff's premises located in Uniondale, New York. Nubia allegedly began work shortly thereafter, which included removal of the house's roof and the placing of a tarp over the open portions of the roof at the end of each work day. On or about July 13, 2010, a wind and rainstorm allegedly caused portions of the tarp to be removed from plaintiffs roof and exposed the openings in the roof to the elements. Plaintiff alleges that because Nubia failed to properly secure the tarp over the open portions of the house's roof, rain from the storm entered the plaintiff's house and caused damage to the interior of the house, as well as to personal property.

Nubia was insured by a Commercial General Liability insurance policy through Kingstone at the time of this incident...

Nubia notified Kingstone that it was seeking coverage under the Kingstone policy for plaintiff's claim against Nubia for the damage to plaintiff's home and property and Kingstone disclaimed coverage based upon the exclusion in the Kingstone policy for "property damage or products/completed operations liability arising out of your work which involves the removal and/or replacement of roof materials," among other items. In addition, plaintiff sought coverage through her homeowner's policy with Interboro, but Interboro denied coverage because the premises were not plaintiff's primary residence and were not occupied by the homeowner, contrary to the information contained in plaintiffs insurance application to Interboro, which was allegedly prepared and submitted by defendant First Choice Coverages. [EMPHASIS ADDED]

This isn't just theory, folks. Carriers can and do deny coverage because an insured allegedly did not reside in the home.

Leave a Comment

Order in the Court: It Was the Collision That Caused the Injury, Not the Sudden Stop

On April 25, 2009, Jacob Hymes was operating his 2005 Harley Davidson motorcycle when he collided with a 2001 Chevrolet Malibu operated by Robert Meyer. Meyer was subsequently determined to be at fault for the accident. However, Meyer's liability insurance proved to be insufficient to fully compensate Jacob for the injuries he sustained in the accident.

Jacob had not elected to have underinsured motorist coverage from his primary insurer, GEICO, and therefore turned to his parents' policy with Allstate. Allstate denied Jacob's claim for underinsured motorist coverage, relying on the policy's "household exclusion." Allstate subsequently initiated this proceeding via complaint for declaratory judgment against the Apellants, seeking a determination that the policy did not cover Jacob's injuries in this case. The Appellants filed an answer and new matter, and thereafter filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted Allstate's motion and dismissed Jacob's complaint. This timely appeal followed.

On appeal, the Appellants raise one issue for our review:

Did the lower court err in granting declaratory relief to Allstate and determining that a "Household Exclusion" barred recovery by Jacob Hymes of underinsured motorist benefits under his parents' insurance policy when Hymes suffered serious injuries while not "in, on, getting into or out of" his motorcycle and instead suffered those injuries after being thrown from the motorcycle and into the windshield and onto the ground some twenty feet away from the point of impact?

via scholar.google.com

This is sad. A young man, through no fault of his own, suffers serious injuries in an auto accident. The at-fault driver doesn't have enough liability insurance to fully cover the injuries. The injured person had chosen not to buy Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage. Because he doesn't want to start out life with both a serious disability and medical bankruptcy, he desperately tries to find UM/UIM coverage under his parents' insurance. The Pennsylvania court rightly said no:

As explained by the trial court, our review should not result in an absurd construction of the policy. Words of "common usage" in an insurance policy are to be construed in their natural, plain, and ordinary sense, and a court may inform its understanding of these terms by considering their dictionary definitions...

Although we have, on occasions, admired good lawyering on behalf of a client and zealous advocacy, we cannot conclude that there is any plausible argument that the injures complained of here are not the direct result of Jacob's operation of his motorcycle while "on" it. Therefore, we conclude that recovery for UIM benefits is properly excluded under the pertinent policy provision.

This is why it is so important for consumers to at least consider buying the maximum Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist limits available, as well as the maximum Personal Injury Protection limits. I understand why this man and his parents went to court on this; it sounds like his injuries may have been life-altering. Unfortunately, they had no control over the amount of insurance the other driver carried. They could control only the amount that they bought.

I encourage all you insurance producers out there to remember this story the next time a client only wants to talk about price. Easier said than done, I know, but it's an important discussion to have.

Leave a Comment

Health Care Reform Primer: Employer Mandates

In addition to the requirement that individuals carry health insurance coverage, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act imposes on some employers obligations to offer coverage. The "employer mandate" is the subject of today's post. Essentially, it says to certain businesses that, if the government has to help their employees pay for health coverage, the businesses have to help the government offset the cost.

This part begins by adding two new sections to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. An employer subject to the FLSA that has more than 200 full-time employees and that offers employees enrollment in one or more health plans must automatically enroll new full-time employees in one of the offered plans (subject to any legally-permitted waiting period) and continue enrollment of current employees in an offered plan. The employer must provide adequate notice to the employee and give him the opportunity to opt out of coverage. State requirements regarding payroll still apply, except that they cannot prohibit automatic enrollment. 

Employers must also provide new hires (and, by March 1, 2013, current employees) written notice:

• Of the existence of an exchange, a description of the exchange's services, and how employees can contact the exchange for help
• When the employer plan's share of the total allowed costs of benefits is less than 60 percent, the notice must inform employees that they may qualify for premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions if they purchase coverage through the exchange
• That if the employee buys a plan through the exchange, he will lose the employer contribution to any plan offered by the employer and that all or part of the contribution may be excludable from his taxable income.

The rest of this part changes the tax law. It applies to employers who employed an average of 50 or more full-time employees during the preceding calendar year, other than those who exceeded 50 employees because they hired seasonal workers for 120 days or less during the year. If a business is new, the criteria is the average number of employees it is reasonably expected to employ in the current year. If an employer buys another employer, the law applies to it if it would have applied to the purchased employer.

The law states that if:

• A covered employer, during any month, fails to offer full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan, and
• At least one full-time employee has been certified as hanving enrolled for that month in a plan for which he can receive premium tax credits and/or cost-sharing reductions

Then the employer is assessed a tax penalty equal to the number of full-time employees for that month multiplied by $750 divided by 12 ($62.50.) Therefore, a business with 100 full-time employees who does not offer coverage for one month will pay a penalty of $6,250. Starting in 2015, the $750 will be indexed to inflation. Also, employers that require a waiting period of more than 60 days before employees are eligible for coverage are assessed penalties equal to $600 per affected full-time employee. 

If:

• An employer offers full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan, and 
• One or more full-time employees is certified as having enrolled for that month in a plan for which he can receive premium tax credits and/or cost-sharing reductions

Then the employer is assessed a penalty equal to the number of full-time employees for the month multiplied by $3,000 divided by 12 ($250), subject to a maximum of the number of full-time employees multiplied by $62.50. Again, this amount will be indexed for inflation starting in 2015. 

The Treasury Department may provide for payment of the assessments on annual, monthly, or other periodic bases. The department will issue regulations providing for reimbursement to the employer of assessments that were incorrectly made because an employee was incorrectly determined to be eligible for tax credits or reduced cost-sharing. The Labor Department is required to study and report on whether these changes have resulted in reduced wages for workers. 

Employers will have to annually report to the IRS:

• A certification as to whether they offered full-time employees the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan
• The length of any waiting period to which employees were subject
• The months during which coverage was available
• The monthly premium for the lowest-cost option
• The employer's share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan
• The number of full-time employees for each month during the year
• Employee identification information and the months each employee and his dependents were covered.

Employers must by January 31 each year give each reported employee a written statement showing the information they reported to the IRS.

To the extent feasible, the Treasury Department must try to combine this report with the employer's other applicable tax returns. Employers who buy coverage from a health insurance carrier may arrange to have the carrier make the report for them.

Lastly, employees cannot pay for exchange-provided health plans with pre-tax dollars unless they work for an employer qualified to offer a group plan through the exchange. 

That's a wrap on the mandates. The next post will start on some miscellaneous provisions; I hope to cover them all in one post, but I'll break into multiple posts if it gets too long. The good news is that these provisions are the last part of Title I, Quality, Affordable Health Care For All Americans. After scrolling through the law's table of contents, I can see some future sections that I will touch on only briefly and others that I'll discuss in detail. My hope is to have this primer complete by the end of this year. Stay tuned to see if I hit that goal.

Leave a Comment

Why Didn't I Think Of This?

 

That’s a page from Gruber’s forthcoming comic book, “Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works.” And what this speech-bubble resume doesn’t mention is Gruber’s extensive health reform work: The MIT economist was a key player on both the Massachusetts and national health overhauls. Inspired by his three children, Gruber has distilled all that experience into a 152-page comic book. The graphic novel won’t be out till early next year, but we here at Wonkblog have been flipping through an advance copy.

Gruber does a pretty fantastic job translating complex policies into comic-book form. A two-headed alligator represents the twin health menaces of “rising costs” and “the number of uninsured.” Health reform’s high-risk pools become swimming pools; the superhero version of Jonathan spends a decent amount of time warding off rumors of death panels and government health-care takeovers, in the form of zombies and vampires. The Congressional Budget Office makes multiple appearances. The graphic novel feels like John McDonough’s inside-the-room account of the Affordable Care Act, “Inside National Health Reform,” put to pictures.

Will the comic book win over the hearts and minds of any health reform opponents? Probably not. It’s no surprise that Gruber supports the health reform law and believes it will work; he helped write it. Those who disagree with the law won’t have their policy gripes dressed in graphic novel form.

But even when you use zombies, alligators and a health economist superhero, health policy is tough stuff. It takes Gruber 152 pages and 12 chapters to get through it. Although this book is a lot more digestible than tackling the health reform law in its entirety, it’s still more complex, and slower-moving, than your standard Superman adventure. But Gruber should get some slack: Superman never had to tackle cost curves and CBO scores.

 

via www.washingtonpost.com

This looks way cooler than my text-heavy Health Care Reform Primer. I never come up with the best ideas...

Leave a Comment

'Ask Tim' Podcast Episodes Now Available on iTunes

Breaking news: After much time, effort, video editing gyrations and a generous amount of profanity, I've configured the RSS feed for the podcast so that the last 10 episodes are now available in the iTunes Store. This means that you can subscribe to the podcast in iTunes (by, coincidentally, clicking the Subscribe in iTunes link on the left side of this screen) and get them automatically delivered to your computer or smartphone. You never have to miss the sight of me throwing something at J.B. McCampbell again.

Please note, if you will be watching them on an iPod Touch, you may need to do a wee bit of configuring in the iTunes software first. Simply select the video you want to watch from the list in the Podcasts section of the software, click the Advanced menu at the top of the screen, and select Create iPod or iPhone Version. That will format the video so you can watch it on those devices.

Leave a Comment

Health Care Reform Primer: The Individual Mandate

Probably no element of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is more controversial than the so-called individual mandate. It is the subject of extensive litigation that has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Observers of the court expect it to issue a ruling during the heart of next year's presidential election season, effectively throwing gasoline on the inferno. I'm going to discuss this provision in detail below, but in its essence the provision gives taxpayers a choice: Purchase health insurance to cover yourself and your dependents, or pay a tax penalty. The question that the Obama Administration and opponents to the PPACA have asked the Supreme Court to answer is, does the U.S. Constitution give Congress the power to compel taxpayers to make this choice? Federal courts, both at the trial and appellate level, have arrived at opposing answers to this question.

The authors of Section 1501, titled Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage, wrote their arguments for the law's constitutionality into the law. The first subsection, Findings, states (I have paraphrased to save space):

• The requirement to maintain coverage is commercial and economic in nature (economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for and when health insurance is purchased) and substantially affects interstate commerce
• "In the absence of the requirement, some individuals would make an economic and financial decision to forego health insurance coverage and attempt to self-insure, which increases financial risks to households and medical providers."
• "Health insurance and health care services are a significant part of the national economy...Since most health insurance is sold by national or regional health insurance companies, health insurance is sold in interstate commerce and claims payments flow through interstate commerce."
• Coupled with other provisions of the PPACA, the mandate will increase the supply of and demand for health care services and will increase the number and share of insured Americans.
• The mandate achieves "near-universal" coverage by "building upon and strengthening" the private employer-based health insurance system. The provision specifically notes that the individual mandate in Massachusetts has "strengthened private employer-based coverage."
• By reducing the number of uninsured Americans, the mandate will significantly reduce the $207 billion annual cost to the economy caused by the poorer health and shorter lifespans of the uninsured.
• The mandate will significantly reduce premiums for those who are already insured by eliminating cost-shifting that results when health care providers are not compensated for treating the uninsured.
• The mandate will improve families' financial security by increasing health insurance coverage. The provision states that medical expenses are at least partly responsible for 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies.
• Existing law gives the federal government a significant role in regulating health insurance, and the mandate is an essential part of this regulation.
• The mandate minimizes adverse selection against insurance carriers and broadens the risk pool to include healthy individuals, resulting in lower premiums.
• The mandate is essential to creating effective health insurance markets in which improved, guaranteed-issue health insurance policies with no pre-existing condition exclusions can be sold.
• Increased economies of scale, resulting from the increased number of insured Americans, will reduce administrative costs and premiums.

The provisions of the mandate are:

• For each month after 2013, individuals must ensure that they and their dependents have "minimum essential coverage" for that month.
• An individual who fails to do this must pay a penalty when filing his tax return for that tax year. Individuals are liable for penalties resulting from their dependents being uninsured; individuals and their spouses who file joint returns are jointly liable for the penalty.

The following types of individuals are exempt from the mandate:

• Those who have filed an application for exemption (and for whom the IRS has granted the exemption) on the basis that they are members of a recognized religious sect or one of its divisions; they are adherents of established tenets or teachings of the sect; because of these tenets or teachings, they are conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of private or public medical care insurance. The Internal Revenue Code has for decades contained a similar exemption, with standards for evidence, for those religiously opposed to Social Security and Medicare.
• Members of "health care sharing ministries." A health care sharing ministry is a tax-exempt non-profit whose members "share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs and without regard to the State in which a member resides or is employed." Its members retain membership "even after they develop a medical condition," it has existed and continuously shared the medical expenses of members since December 31, 1999, and has a CPA conduct an annual audit of its books.
• Illegal immigrants
• People in jail or prison following the disposition of charges.

Calculating the amount of the monthly penalty is a three-step process:

• Add the "applicable dollar amounts" for all uncovered individuals in the household. This amount is $95 for 2014, $350 for 2015, $750 for 2016, and is indexed for inflation thereafter (the amount is reduced by half for those under age 18.) Multiply the applicable dollar amount (not reduced for those under age 18) by three. Compare the two results and use the one that's lower.
• Multiple the taxpayer's household income by 1.0 percent in 2014 (2.0 percent in 2015, 2.5percent for 2016 and after). Compare that number to the result of the previous step. Use the one that's greater.
• Divide this number by 12. Compare it to the national average premium for bronze-level coverage offered through exchanges for that family size. The number that is less is the amount of the penalty.

To illustrate, assume a household with a single parent and two children under age 18 in the year 2016. Household modified taxable income is $50,000. The national average monthly premium for bronze-level coverage family coverage offered through exchanges is $1,300. Here's how we calculate the penalty:

• The "applicable dollar amount" is $750 for the parent and $375 for each of the kids (one-half of $750,) for a total of $1,500. The unadjusted applicable amount multiplied by three is $2,150 (three times $750.) The lesser of the two is $1,500, which is the number we use for the next step.
• Multiply the household income of $50,000 by 0.02. The result is $1,000. Since the result we got in step one is greater ($1,500,) we take $1,500 and divide by 12. The result is $125. 
• Compare this result to the national average monthly premium for a bronze-level family plan. $125 is less than $1,300, so this family will pay a tax penalty of $125 for every month that they do not have coverage. 

This penalty appears paltry compared to the premium, but keep in mind that we have not factored in any premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions for which the family may qualify. These might make coverage more attractive to the family.

The following individuals are exempt from the penalty:

• Individuals for whom the monthly required contribution for coverage exceeds eight percent of the household's income for the tax year. The eight percent threshold may increase after 2014, depending on the rate of health insurance premium inflation.
• Taxpayers with incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty line
• Members of Indian tribes
• Those who have a continuous coverage gap of less than three months
• Those who receive a hardship exemption from the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

Special rules included in the provision:

• "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."
• The IRS cannot place a lien or levy on a taxpayer's property with respect to a failure to pay the tax penalty under the mandate.

Health insurance providers must, by January 31 each year, report to the IRS on behalf of the insured individuals that the individuals had coverage for the previous calendar year. They must also send a summary of the reported information to the insured individuals. Officers of employees of governmental units will make the reports in cases where the coverage is through that governmental unit (i.e., Medicare.) Lastly, the Treasury Department must, by June 30 each year, send notices to all individual tax filers who are not enrolled in health plans informing them of the services available through the exchanges where they live.

And that is the whole story on the individual mandate. Everyone buys insurance or pays a tax penalty unless they're exempt, but no jail time, fines or tax liens for failing to pay the penalty. Will the nine justices of the Supreme Court uphold it, or will they say that Congress went too far? If they decide it's unconstitutional, what other methods should the country try to achieve the goals of universal health insurance and spreading the risk further? Smarter people than me are trying to figure that out. 

The next post in this series will look at the employer mandates.

Leave a Comment

 

Does a Premium Finance Company Have to Send Cancellation Notices By Certified Mail?

Question from an IIABNY member: What do you know about finance company cancellation notices? If the cancellation is on a Workers Compensation policy is the finance company required to send the notices to the insured Certified Mail/Return Receipt like the insurance companies do?

Answer: New York Banking Law Sect. 576 applies here. It states:

"1. When a premium finance agreement contains a power of attorney or other authority enabling the premium finance agency to cancel any insurance contract or contracts listed in the agreement, the insurance contract or contracts shall not be cancelled unless such cancellation is effectuated in accordance with the following provisions:

(a) Not less than ten days written notice shall be mailed to the insured at his last known address as shown on the records of the premium finance agency, of the intent of the premium finance agency to cancel the insurance contract unless the default is cured within such ten day period and that at least three days for mailing such notice is added to the ten day notice. A copy of the notice of intent to cancel shall also be mailed to the insurance agent or broker.

(b) Service of the notice of intent to cancel or notice of cancellation by mail shall be effective provided that the notices are mailed to the insured's last known address as shown on the records of the premium finance agency. The records of the premium finance agency shall be presumptive evidence as to the correctness of such address.

(c) If the insurance contract or contracts provide motor vehicle liability insurance, every such notice of cancellation shall include in type or print, of which the face shall not be smaller than twelve point, a statement that proof of financial security is required to be maintained continuously throughout the registration period and a notice prescribed by the commissioner of motor vehicles indicating the punitive effects of failure to maintain continuous proof of financial security and actions which may be taken by the insured to avoid punitive effects.

(d) After the notice in paragraph (a) above has expired, the premium finance agency may thereafter, in the name of the insured, cancel such insurance contract by mailing to the insurer a notice of cancellation stating when thereafter the policy shall be cancelled, and the insurance contract shall be cancelled as if such notice of cancellation had been submitted by the insured himself, but without requiring the return of the insurance contract. A copy of the notice of cancellation shall also be mailed to the insured..."

Nothing in this language requires the finance company to send the notice by certified mail, return receipt. In addition, New York Workers' Compensation Law Sect. 54, which requires notice by certified mail, return receipt, appears to refer only to insurers ("No contract of insurance issued by an insurance carrier against liability arising under this chapter shall be cancelled within the time limited in such contract for its expiration unless notice is given as required by this section...Such notice shall be served on the employer by delivering it to him, her or it or by sending it by mail, by certified or registered letter, return receipt requested, addressed to the employer at his, her or its last known place of business..."). I think if the legislature had intended for premium finance companies to follow the same rules as insurers, it would have included the same language in Banking Law Sect. 576. (As a side note, Sect. 576 does contain some provisions that apply specifically to auto policies; the legislature could have done likewise for Workers' Comp.)

To summarize, in my opinion premium finance companies do not have to send cancellation notices for Workers' Comp policies by certified mail. 

Leave a Comment