Summer Camps are Closed

Published by Jennifer Bush on July 31, 2020

With the new school year fast approaching and some schools electing to delay the start date, we want to make sure employers are plugged into the requirements of FFCRA. Small businesses are required by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) to give employees paid leave from wok in certain circumstances relating to COVID-19. One requirement is that the child’s school/daycare/summer camp must be unavailable because of COVID-19.

The below article from FUBA helps breakdown the requirements of FFCRA.

Small businesses are required by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) to give employees paid leave from work in certain circumstances relating to COVID-19. Employees who cannot work due to very specific reasons related to COVID-19 are entitled to two weeks of paid leave, with an additional 10 weeks of paid leave if they have to stay home to care for a son or daughter whose school, daycare, or summer camp is closed due to COVID-19.

If you have an employee who cannot come to work because they have to take care of a child because the child’s summer daycare – a school, camp or other program in which the employee’s child is enrolled – is closed or unavailable for a COVID-19 related reason, the employee may be entitled to paid leave.

Keep in mind that the child’s school/daycare/summer camp must be unavailable because of COVID-19. School being closed for summer vacation does not qualify an employee for paid leave because school is always closed during the summer and that closure is not related to COVID-19. If school does not reopen in the fall due to COVID-19, that may qualify employees for paid leave. However, if schools reopen but the employee’s children are attending online or digitally, the employee may not qualify for paid leave.

If an employee requests paid leave, you should get the following:

The employee’s name and the dates the leave is requested
A statement of the COVID-19 related reason the employee is requesting leave
A statement that the employee is unable to work or telework for this reason
Documentation supporting the reason for leave

The employee also needs to give you the name and age of the child they will be taking care of, the name of the daycare/summer camp that has closed, and they must provide a statement that no one else will be caring for the child while the employee is on paid leave. If the child is older than 14, the employee must show that special circumstances require them to stay home with the child during daylight hours.

Employees taking paid leave because their child’s daycare/summer camp is closed due to COVID-19 must be paid two-thirds their regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day. Learn more about calculating pay here.

You can offset the cost of their leave by keeping a portion of the quarterly federal employment taxes you would otherwise deposit with the IRS. If the cost of the leave is more than your federal employment tax bill, you can request an advance refund from the IRS using form 7200. To claim a payroll tax credit, you must retain the documentation described above and comply with any IRS procedures for claiming the tax credit. For more information about how to claim these payroll tax credits and what documentation is required, click here. For more information about form 7200, click here.

Click here to learn about other reasons that entitle employees to paid leave.

______________________________________________________________________

This article was written by FUBA Workers’ Comp

Paid Leave Concerns When Employees Get COVID-19 Twice – Law360.com

Published by David Burgess on July 16, 2020

https://www.law360.com/articles/1291176

Law360 (July 15, 2020, 4:21 PM EDT) —

Mark Konkel

Maria Biaggi

Nicholas Kromka

The coronavirus has been novel in more ways than one. On one end of the spectrum, employers confront new questions of almost philosophical dimensions.

How much risk is too much risk? What risks should we ask our employees to accept? Where is the line between ordinary risk — the kind that employees undertake when they walk out the door every day to go to work — and the extraordinary risks posed by a pandemic from which, in the end, employers cannot entirely shield their workforces?

A seemingly more mundane novelty is the plethora of new COVID-19 laws and regulations. Compliance should just be a matter of reading a statute and, well, complying. But even there, an evolving real-world pandemic potentially makes compliance just as complicated.

One example we have helped our clients wrestle with involves exactly this kind of straightforward-on-paper, tricky-in-practice complexity.

One requirement of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act appears to be simple: When an employee working for an employer with under 500 employees gets sick with COVID-19, is seeking a COVID-19 diagnosis, or is subject to a quarantine order of a doctor or a government, they are entitled to up to 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave.

And that made perfect sense when the law was hurriedly drafted: You get sick once, and you do not get sick again, right?

Wrong. Mounting evidence now shows that contracting COVID-19 does not confer absolute immunity and that many individuals have now contracted the novel coronavirus more than once. So what happens when an employee exhausts his or her 80-hour emergency paid sick leave entitlement, recovers from COVID-19, and then contracts it again?

What are the basic requirements of the FFCRA?

Under the FFCRA, full-time and part-time employees who are unable to work or telework due to one of the qualifying reasons below may take up to 80 hours of paid sick leave.

The employee is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID–19.
The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID–19.
The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID–19 and seeking a medical diagnosis.
The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to the first or second reason above.
The employee is caring for his or her child if the school or place of care of the child has been closed, or the child care provider of such child is unavailable, due to COVID–19 precautions.
The employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in consultation with the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.

An employee who contracts COVID-19 may be eligible to take 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave for one or more of the above-qualifying reasons. However, they may only take 80 hours of paid sick leave once.

That is, the language of the FFCRA is arguably quite clear that two weeks of emergency paid sick leave is all an employee is entitled to within one Family and Medical Leave Act period, i.e., 12 months, whether a calendar year, another fixed 12-month leave year, etc.

The new legislation, effective April 1 to Dec. 31, was quickly drafted in March when the coronavirus was still novel. But while there is still so much that is unknown about COVID-19, we can no longer assume that an individual who has been infected with COVID-19 and recovers, will not be able to get the virus again.

In the U.S., people are reporting testing positive for the virus after having recovered from an initial infection.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

When a positive test occurs less than about 6 weeks after the person met criteria for discontinuation of isolation, it can be difficult to determine if the positive test represents a new infection or a persistently positive test associated with the previous infection. If the positive test occurs more than 6-8 weeks after the person has completed their most recent isolation, clinicians and public health authorities should consider the possibility of reinfection.[2]

And, of course, persons who are determined to be potentially infectious should undergo evaluation and remain isolated.

In April, the DOL issued guidance which also confirms the plain language of the FFCRA’s FMLA Expansion Act. That is, employees are not entitled to any more than 12 weeks of FMLA leave in a 12-month period, regardless of whether an employee takes paid leave under the FMLA Expansion Act or regular unpaid FMLA leave for reasons unrelated to COVID-19.

The FMLA Expansion Act does not add additional job-protected leave time. Rather, it adds additional qualifying reasons to take leave. Thus, an employee who takes 12 weeks of FMLA leave, does not have an additional 12 weeks of leave under the act because he or she is, for example, experiencing symptoms of COVID–19 for a second time and seeking another medical diagnosis.

Moreover, employees who may have taken FMLA leave for reasons other than the public health emergency in the preceding leave year may have reduced leave time under the FMLA for purposes of the public health emergency. This may have the unfortunate effect of potentially leaving those who are most vulnerable with less leave time than employees who have not needed to use regular unpaid FMLA leave for their own serious health condition. Also, the FFCRA only applies to employers with 500 or fewer employees.

New York employers are required to comply with both the FFCRA and the New York Emergency Paid Sick Leave Law, or EPSL. The benefits available under the EPSL vary based on the size and net income of the employer.

Under the EPSL, private employers with 100 or more employees are required to provide their employees with at least 14 days of paid sick leave. Employees in New York are eligible for benefits under the EPSL when the benefits provided by that law are in excess of those provided under the FFCRA.

In this situation, employees would be entitled to federal benefits, plus the difference in benefits provided under the FFCRA and the EPSL. In other words, no double dipping. And, unless the employee has to care for a family member with a serious health condition, he or she would not be entitled to New York paid family leave.

Given all this, there is no statutory obligation under the FFCRA to provide employees with additional paid leave in the unfortunate circumstance that an employee contracts the virus twice. However, this may not always be the answer under state law.

For example, the New York State Department of Health and New York State Department of Labor recently issued guidance providing that health care employees who test positive after a quarantine or isolation may receive paid sick leave for up to two additional periods of quarantine or isolation.

Employers could certainly opt to pay employees during a second quarantine, but they are not required to under the current federal law. Alternatively, employers could provide unpaid time off, if the employee has exhausted his or her paid time off.

An employer may also be obligated to consider leave as a reasonable accommodation for individuals whose disabilities put them at greater risk from COVID-19, unless such an accommodation would cause an undue hardship on the employer.

So that ends the inquiry, right? Again: wrong.

What’s an employer to do?

We are always wary of simple answers to tricky questions. One answer to the questions posed above is deceptively simple: If an employee has exhausted her 80 hours of FFCRA leave, it is exhausted, and she is not entitled to a second round of leave.

While that position is straightforward and legally defensible, it misses a bigger context. If an employee is not entitled to additional leave but has contracted COVID-19 twice (or more), a sensible employer, or at least, one that is interested in avoiding getting sued by other employees, will not allow the sick employee to return to work. But if an employer takes the position that an employee ordered to stay home is not entitled to pay, it opens up a whole other can of worms.

One policy arguably underlying the pay protection provisions of the FFCRA is to encourage candor: Employees will be less likely to ignore or minimize their own symptoms, and to tell their employers about what is going on, if they are not concerned about losing compensation as a reward for their honesty.

And with federal unemployment benefits of $600 per week in addition to the normal level of benefits still in place, an employee may well consider continuing to stay home or eventually finding another job.

These concerns underscore why many larger employers who are not subject to the FFCRA’s coverage because of their size have gratuitously offered pay protection to sick employees: You want to know that employees are sick, tell them to stay home to avoid community spread in the workplace, and — perhaps most importantly to your longer-term business goals — actually retain a workforce you hope can return soon enough in full force.

Obviously, employers must first and foremost ensure compliance with applicable law, including the FFCRA. But navigating the pandemic is not just a question of strict compliance. Arguably, protecting continuity of operations, the health of the workforce and an employer’s long-term investment in its workforce is at least as important as ensuring any shorter-term compliance.

While this article cannot address how a specific employer will weigh those potentially competing concerns, smart employers consider all of those impacts in deciding whether or not to maintain a leave policy that may exceed, not just meet, the requirements of the FFCRA.

Regardless of whether the U.S. is in the first or second wave, the possibility is now evident that employees may get the coronavirus for a second time, while having already exhausted the leave entitlements under the FFCRA, state leave laws and the employer’s PTO policy. Employers should be prepared to face this new obstacle, particularly as cases in the U.S. are not abating.

Mark A. Konkel is a partner and co-chair of the labor and employment practice group at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

Maria B. Biaggi is an associate at the firm.

Nicholas J. Kromka is an associate at the firm.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

The New Normal….Pandemic Insurance Products

Published by Sharlie Reynolds on July 13, 2020

It was only a matter of time before insurers began to develop products to cover pandemics. The products range from traffic monitor apps that pay insureds based on a minimum threshold to relapse coverage that protects businesses forced to shut down a second time. The complete article from Reuters is below.

————————-

Insurers are creating products for a world where virus outbreaks could become the new normal after many businesses were left out in the cold during the COVID-19 crisis.

While new pandemic-proof policies might not be cheap, they offer businesses from restaurants to film production companies to e-commerce retailers ways of insuring against disruptions and losses if another virus strikes.

The providers include big insurers and brokers adding new products to existing coverage, as well as niche players that see an opportunity in filling the void left by mainstream firms that categorize virus outbreaks like wars or nuclear explosions.

Tech firm Machine Cover, for example, aims to offer policies next year that would give relief during lockdowns. Using apps and other data sources, the Boston-based company measures traffic levels around businesses such as restaurants, department stores, hairdressers and car dealers.

If traffic drops below a certain level, it pays out, whatever the reason.

“This is the type of coverage which … businesses thought they had paid for when they bought their current business interruption policies before the coronavirus pandemic,” the company’s founder Inder-Jeet Gujral told Reuters.

“I believe this will be a major opportunity because post-COVID, it would be as irresponsible to not buy insurance against pandemics as it would be to not buy insurance against fire.”

The company is backed by insurer Hiscox and individual investors, mostly from the insurance and private equity world.

Restaurants in Florida’s Miami-Dade County, where Mayor Carlos Gimenez on Monday ordered dining to shut down soon after reopening, are now reeling, said Andrew Giambarba, a broker for Insurance Office of America in Doral, Florida.

“It’s been like they made it to the ninth round of the fight and were holding on when this punch came out of nowhere,” said Giambarba, whose clients include restaurants that did not get payouts under their business interruption coverage.

“Every niche that is dealing with insurance that is affected by business interruption needs every new product they can have.”

Filling the Void

Pandemic exemptions have helped some insurers emerge relatively unscathed and the sector has largely resisted pressure to provide more virus cover. Indeed, some insurers that paid out for event cancellations and other losses have removed pandemics from their coverage.

British risk managers association Airmic said last week that the pandemic had contributed to a lack of adequate insurance at an affordable price and most of its members were looking at other ways to reduce risk.

To help fill the void in a locked-down world, Lloyd’s of London insurer Beazley Plc, started selling a contingency policy last month to insure organizers of streamed music, cultural and business events against technical glitches.

“These events are completely reliant on the technology working and a failure can be financially crippling,” said Mark Symons, contingency underwriter at Beazley.

Marsh, the world’s biggest insurance broker, has teamed up with AXA XL, part of France’s AXA, and data firm Arity, which is part of Allstate, to help businesses such as U.S. supermarket chains, restaurants and e-commerce retailers cope with the challenges of social distancing.

With home deliveries surging, firms have hired individual drivers to meet demand, but commercial auto liability insurance for “gig” contractors with their own vehicles is hard to find.

Marsh and its partners devised a policy based on usage with a price-by-mile insurance, which can be cheaper than typical commercial auto cover as delivering a pizza doesn’t have the same risks as driving people around.

“Even when the pandemic is over, we believe last-mile delivery will continue to grow,” said Robert Bauer, head of Marsh’s U.S. sharing economy and mobility practice.

A report by consultants Capgemini showed that demand for usage-based insurance has skyrocketed since COVID-19 first broke out and more than 50% of the customers it surveyed wanted it.

However, only half of the insurers interviewed by Capgemini for its World Insurance Report said they offered it.

Bespoke Cover

Since businesses are only now learning how outbreaks can affect them, some new products are effectively custom-made.

Elite Risk Insurance in Newport Beach, California, has been offering “COVID outbreak relapse coverage” since May for businesses forced to shut down a second time, its founder Jeff Kleid said.

The policies are crafted around specific businesses and only pay out when certain conditions are met, Kleid said.

For film and television production companies that could be when a cast member contracts the virus, forcing them to stop shooting. Another client, which raises livestock for restaurants, is covered for a scenario in which it would be impossible to get animal feed.

Such policies do not come cheap. A $1 million policy could cost between about $80,000 to $100,000 depending on the terms.

“The insurance … is costly because it covers a risk that does not have a historical basis for calculating the price,” Kleid says.

And in March, when COVID-19 ravaged northern Italy, Generali’s Europ Assistance offered medical help, financial support and teleconsultations for sufferers when discharged from hospital, on top of regular health insurance.

It sold 1.5 million policies in just two weeks and now has 3 million customers in Europe and United States.

Some insurers are also working on changes to employee compensation and health insurance schemes. With millions of workers not expected to return to offices anytime soon, some large insurers in Asia are preparing coverage to account for that, according to people familiar with those efforts.

At least one Japanese insurer has started work on a product to cover employees for injury while working at home, they said.

“Working from home will be the new normal for years to come. That would make the scope of the employee compensation scheme meaningless if a person suffers an injury while at home,” said a Hong Kong-based senior executive at a European insurer.

(Reporting by Noor Zainab Hussain in Bengaluru, Suzanne Barlyn in Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, Carolyn Cohn in London and Sumeet Chatterjee in Hong Kong; additional reporting by Muvija M; Editing by Tomasz Janowski and David Clarke)

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2020/07/10/575081.htm

Fears of unsafe conditions raise worker rights concerns

Published by Mary Beth Eaton on July 6, 2020

As the numbers of COVID-19 infections continue to climb, employment attorneys say fearful workers have limited rights in refusing to work, while employers have legal obligations to provide a safe place to work.

It’s an intersection legal experts say calls for enhanced communication between companies and their workers and a constant adherence to evolving state and federal laws guiding work during the pandemic.

“Companies need to assure employees they are on top of this; it goes a long way,” said Matt Hinton, New York-based partner for risk consulting firm Control Risks Ltd. He says the issue is one to watch as more states lift restrictions.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have both issued guidelines on workplace safely. As of Wednesday, at least one state — Oregon — is gearing up to create permanent workplace safety guidelines for infectious diseases.

A majority of employers say they have plans in place. And safety professionals are telling employers to encourage employee engagement in safety protocols. Yet concerns are growing over whether employers are doing enough. On Monday, unions representing some 60,000 Nevada hospitality workers sued three casino properties over alleged unsafe working conditions related to the coronavirus.

Worker fear is a genuine concern, but it’s not enough to refuse work, said Courtney Malveaux, Richmond, Virginia-based principal and attorney with Jackson Lewis P.C.

The rule is a worker must have a “specific” concern, he said. An example would be if the workplace is not clean, or the worksite is not following local regulations such as requiring individuals to wear masks.

“A generalized fear of COVID does not provide a basis for refusing to work; it has to be a specific fear of a circumstance at that employee’s workplace,” Mr. Malveaux said. “It also has to be a fear that is made in good faith and is reasonable to others.”

An employee with a compromised immune system or other health issue that puts him or her at risk for COVID-19 complications could be protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which would require the employer to work to find the employee an accommodation, such as an alternative work environment, he said. Any concern with work “must be specific to the workplace or the employee” with a health condition, he said.

Maurice Emsellem, Berkeley, California-based program director of the National Employment Law Project, said worker rights advocates are calling on the federal government to outline more specific guidelines for those who refuse work under certain conditions. He said that what is in place among OSHA, CDC and ADA may not be enough.

There is also concern that state unemployment agencies are not keeping up with the changing landscape. “(Workers) are vulnerable because they lose their unemployment benefits if the state agencies don’t do the right thing,” he said. “In general, workers have to know they can refuse unsafe work.” In most states, a worker who quits a job cannot collect unemployment benefits.

Expect litigation, said Maxfield Marquardt, Los Angeles-based counsel and associate director for regulatory affairs at Trusaic Inc., a compliance technology company. Many state laws create parameters for employees to work “at will,” he said.

“An employee has the right to not show up for work,” he said. “But will they keep their jobs? … An employer can say, ‘You want to work? Come in.’”

Disagreements over whether conditions are safe, or whether an employer is following safe guidelines, are “part of the reason you are going to see a lot of litigation,” Mr. Marquardt said. “Litigation and regulatory guidance are evolving at a fast pace. OSHA could change its guidelines Friday; the CDC may change its guidelines again.” How can companies avoid the potential legal mess? Pay attention and consider the federal, state and local workplace mandates as “the bare minimum” in ensuring safe working conditions, Mr. Hinton said. “The employee sentiment is the important piece,” he said. “Have a path for your employees to raise their hand and say, ‘This isn’t working.’”

Listening to employees will be key, said Kim Brunell, Washington-based associate director at Control Risks. “You have to have a collaborative approach to safety,” she said. “Employers that do that best consider the context of a particular work environment.”

Originally posted on July 1st, 2020 by Louise Esola for Business Insurance

As COVID-19 Spreads, Beware of EPL Risks

Published by Mary Beth Eaton on June 26, 2020

As businesses of all sizes strive to protect their employees and preserve cash flow during the coronavirus pandemic, likely the last thing on most of their minds is employment practices liability (EPL) exposures. But EPL risks are higher during pandemics and other periods when employers are more likely to furlough, lay off or ask employees to work from home.

Despite federal legislation aimed at relieving financial burdens on workers and their employers, many businesses face difficult choices – and more complicated record keeping.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), which takes effect April 1, permits workers to take paid public health emergency leave to care for themselves or their children through the end of 2020. The law requires employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees who cannot work due to the closure of their children’s school or child-care provider during the public health emergency. The law generally requires employers to restore the employee to his or her former job after leave, unless the employer has 25 or fewer workers, or the position no longer exists due to economic conditions resulting from the public health emergency (source 1, 2).

Several EPL risks for businesses can arise from the current coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. These include:

Wage-and-hour issues. Employers should carefully track employees’ working time, especially in work-from- home arrangements, as well as during a furlough. Work hours are common tipping points for eligibility under an employer’s employee benefits plan.

“A lot of employment issues arise from COVID-19. Frequent questions I get from employers concern furloughs, layoffs, and working from home,” said Kunal Shah, Of Counsel at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP in Dallas. “If a business temporarily closes its doors, or significantly reduces its staff and hours, how do we navigate employee compensation and benefits? Insureds need to be mindful that furloughs, if not handled properly, can lead to significant wage-and-hour claims.”

If an employer requires employees to take unpaid leave through furlough, problems can arise if employees are asked to spend even a little bit of that time working, Shah cautioned. “An employer can furlough an exempt employee, but if the employee does one second of work, he or she is entitled to full pay for the entire pay period under the Fair Labor Standards Act,” he said.

“Employers need to be mindful of local and state ordinances, too. Employees of businesses that are deemed non- essential should not be working if they are under a shelter-in-place order,” Shah said.

Hours spent working matter, to workers and their employers. “Benefit plans may no longer provide benefits if hours fall below a certain threshold,” Shah explained. “For example, if a full-time employee goes below a certain hours minimum required for benefits under their group health plan, he or she may trigger coverage under COBRA,” or the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, a federal law that allows workers to obtain group health insurance temporarily, usually for up to 18 months.

“The reverse can also happen, where an employee works more hours than agreed upon, thus making him or her eligible for certain benefits otherwise not agreed to. For these reasons, timekeeping and logging hours are important steps for every employer, especially in a working-from-home arrangement,” Shah advised. Relying on employees to track their own time can be risky. “Asking employees to report their hours daily, even in an e-mail, is a good way to document work time if an employer lacks a logging system for remote workers,” Shah suggested.

“Also, employees who are on unpaid leave or working less hours due to furlough can still apply for unemployment benefits. An employer must be mindful of these sorts of situations to avoid wage-and-hour claims,” Shah advised.

Wrongful termination. Reductions in force (RIFs) are an unfortunate fact during economic downturns, such as the one that is occurring due to COVID-19. RIFs often lead to wrongful termination claims, and potentially even class-action lawsuits.

Because the coronavirus so far poses greater health risks to people over age 65, people with obesity and underlying uncontrolled health conditions such as diabetes or liver disease, and pregnant women, employers must proceed carefully with terminations. The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention offers information resources to help business and employers slow the spread of COVID-19 (source).

It might seem logical to some employers to lay off workers at greater risk of contracting COVID-19, but that is problematic and could invite lawsuits alleging discrimination and wrongful termination.

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) issues. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces anti- discrimination laws, including the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. With the stress and anxiety over COVID-19, employees with disabilities might make more requests for reasonable accommodations under the ADA. Employers should consider any accommodation requests during the pandemic in the same manner in which they otherwise would. The EEOC also has published guidance for employers on COVID-19 (source).

The ADA allows employers to seek certain information about employees’ health and disabilities, insofar as such information is job-related and consistent with “business necessity,” but employers must remain aware of their obligations to apply it consistently and keep information confidential.

“Because we are dealing with a pandemic, it is now OK for employers to take employees’ temperatures or send an employee home if he or she is exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms, but any information an employer collects about an employee’s health must be treated as a confidential medical record,” Shah said. “During a pandemic like COVID-19, employees exhibiting symptoms consistent with the virus post a direct threat under the ADA, warranting an employer’s questions out of business necessity. Employers should remember that all other aspects of the ADA remain in effect. There is still the potential for retaliation claims under the ADA and other laws.”

Third-party discrimination. Another form of EPL exposure is third-party discrimination. Such claims may come from customers or others. For example, refusal of service or preferential treatment could be construed as third-party discrimination.

“Businesses all over the United States have been mandated to practice social distancing and not put their employees or customers in jeopardy. Businesses can’t prevent claims, but they may have lots of meritorious defenses,” Shah said.

Original article posted by CRC Group Wholesale & Specialty

Pandemic Roiling D&O Marketplace

Published by Mary Beth Eaton on June 25, 2020

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to grow, the directors and officers of public and private organizations are facing risks on two fronts: the economic impacts of COVID-19 and litigation. Adding to the challenge is a hardening insurance marketplace.

D&O liability insurance was already undergoing a market correction before the pandemic, after years of poor results and growth in claims. The uncertainties that COVID-19 is bringing to all sectors of the economy will undoubtedly lead to further changes – not only in the form of higher rates, but also tighter terms and conditions, as well as additional exclusions.

These trends will make navigating a complex line of coverage even more challenging, but they are not unprecedented. D&O insurers similarly tightened their underwriting during the financial crisis in 2008, then eased coverage restrictions after the global recession ended.

Times of crisis historically make directors and officers more frequent targets of litigation, as plaintiffs scrutinize organizations’ decisions. Generally, D&O allegations tend to fall into three categories: disclosures, particularly for public companies; mismanagement, especially when companies post results or their share prices drop precipitously; and insolvency. Even when a lawsuit is found to have no merit, organizations still must defend it, and those expenses can quickly mount.

D&O LAWSUITS OVER COVID-19

The Securities and Exchange Commission has encouraged public companies to disclose the impact of the coronavirus on their operations and financial condition, even as the SEC notes the future impact is uncertain. But public statements can get companies into hot water, as recent litigation shows.

Several lawsuits naming organizations and their directors and officers have already been filed with allegations relating directly to the coronavirus pandemic.¹ A sampling of lawsuits include class actions against:

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. In March, plaintiffs filed a federal securities lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the cruise line made false and misleading statements about the impact of COVID-19 on the company’s operations and business prospects. The lawsuit also cited media reports of leaked internal memos directing the cruise line’s sales staff to lie about the coronavirus.²
Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc. Also in March, plaintiffs filed a securities lawsuit alleging the biotechnology company made false and misleading statements that it had designed a vaccine for COVID-19 in three hours. A research firm called on the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate Inovio’s statement, suggesting it was “ludicrous and dangerous.”³

Article originally posted on CRC Group Wholesale & Specialty Group

Workers’ Comp Premiums Could Skyrocket With COVID-19 Claims

Published by Kevin Williams on March 31, 2020

Source: Bloomberg Environment

Health-care workers likely eligible for workers’ comp
Grocery, delivery workers will argue for eligibility

Health-care workers and emergency responders will benefit from rules eased in some states around workers’ compensation that will allow them to collect benefits if they can prove they caught Covid-19 on the job. Some say essential workers like grocery store employees and delivery workers also should qualify.

But employers need to be aware of the changing rules, and be prepared for the likely end result—skyrocketing premiums.

State workers’ compensation boards around the country are amending rules for benefits payouts to include health-care workers exposed to the virus and then quarantined.

Attorneys are keeping a close eye on the questions, such as who should be eligible to receive benefits, how does a worker prove they caught Covid-19 on the job, and how will an influx of successful claims affect businesses’ premiums to insurance carriers.

“If everybody who gets sick on the job is able to file a compensation claim and everyone is successful, it may bankrupt a company,” said Michael Duff, a workers’ compensation professor at the University of Wyoming.

Quarantined Workers

Workers’ compensation is a state-mandated insurance program that provides pay to workers who are injured on the job—in return, the worker agrees not to sue their employer. Like unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation rules vary by state.

In early March, Washington’s Department of Labor & Industries announced that it “will provide benefits to these workers during the time they’re quarantined after being exposed to COVID-19 on the job.”

And on March 13, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear’s office announced that Kentucky Employers’ Mutual Insurance will “expand coverage benefits to include the quarantine period for first responders and medical personnel,” a news release stated.

Still, many states haven’t changed their policies, and experts say proving causation can be tough for workers.

Proving Exposure at Work

Earlier this month, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration declared that coronavirus was a recordable injury—meaning an employer would have to notify the federal safety agency when a worker caught the disease at work—and issued guidance to that effect.

Safety attorneys said the guidance left confusion about how to prove whether a worker actually contracted the virus on the job, said Joshua Henderson, partner at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP in California.

“At the moment, the question of causation is where there is a lot of uncertainty,” Henderson said. “Whether it was caused by a condition at work.”

Some lawyers and activists think grocery store workers and delivery drivers are eligible for workers’ comp benefits, since their employers deem them essential workers and they could be at higher risk of COVID-19 exposure based on their persistent contact with the public as the pandemic rages across the country.

Duff argues that there are scenarios where a worker could establish causation is by citing one’s essential employee status.

“If you’re required to come in and deemed essential employees, because you are by definition required to come into work during a pandemic, then I think the argument would be, ‘My risk of contracting this disease is by definition higher than the general public.’ What you’re basically saying is, ‘My workplace increases the risk of me contracting the disease’,” Duff said.

He said he believes many workers will qualify for claims, causing employer premiums to rise, and the pandemic exposes fissures in workers’ compensation rules and labor law as a whole.

“If I was in management, I’d figure out a strategy that is fair but won’t hasten my demise or subject me to extraordinary financial pressure,” Duff said. “I would be thinking about how I would responsibly contest claims in a way that doesn’t make me look like an ogre.”

Jeff Eddinger, regulatory business management specialist at the National Council on Compensation Insurance, told Bloomberg Law that no national data is available that can outline the impact of COVID-19 on premiums. Assuming there’s an influx of workers’ compensation claims from the health-care sector, “that would certainly cause some upward pressure on claim costs in the system, but then I would say on the other side of that, during this time where people are telecommuting and some industries shut down, that creates downward pressure because people aren’t working. Those two things could offset each other.”

Duff said employers should develop practices and policies that can reasonably contest claims, but “don’t unreasonably respond to workers because my customers aren’t going to feel good about it.”

Grocery, Delivery, and Essential Workers

Edward W. Guldi, a New York plaintiff’s workers’ comp attorney at The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C., also said it’s not likely grocery or delivery drivers would be successful in worker’s comp claims.

“Nurses are going to get their claims, the hospital workers, too,” Guldi said. “The people who aren’t are grocery store workers, waiters, office workers and delivery drivers and basically everybody else who doesn’t qualify.”

He compared their position to the Sept. 11 firefighters and first responders in New York who initially were denied workers’ compensation. Later, the state legislature passed Article 8-A, which addressed the complications caused by the two-year statutory filing deadline, allowing those injured or sickened in rescue, recovery, and cleanup efforts access to compensation.

The New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health—an organization of unions, worker centers, and activists—already has begun lobbying for sick workers to receive workers’ compensation in New York. A representative from the organization wasn’t available for comment.

John Ruser, president and CEO of the independent, nonprofit Workers Compensation Research Institute, said one way to ensure nonhealth-care workers are covered by workers’ compensation is through state legislation.

“In some cases, legislators passed a law that said certain conditions are presumed to be work-related, therefore all claims that come from a class of workers related to COVID-19 would be compensable. Legislators can pass that,” he said.

Guldi said maybe the New York State Assembly “will do the right thing for those who have this illness. I know when George Pataki was governor, it took unions and police unions and 9/11 widows and lobbying to make that happen.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Fatima Hussein in Washington at fhussein@bloombergenvironment.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Cheryl Saenz at csaenz@bloombergtax.com; Martha Mueller Neff at mmuellerneff@bloomberglaw.com

Department of Labor Issues Final Rule to Allow Associations and PEOs to Sponsor Retirement Plans

Published by David Burgess on January 28, 2020

Final rule defines a PEO as an employer under ERISA and clarifies rules for PEOs to offer retirement benefits

On July 29, 2019, the Department of Labor (the “Department”) issued a final rule to facilitate and expand the availability of multiple employer defined contribution plans (“MEPs”). The final rule provides clarity regarding the types of “bona fide” groups or associations of employers as well as professional employer organizations (“PEOs”) that are permitted to sponsor retirement plans.

NAPEO supports the rule, as it is another step in in formalizing the legal framework for PEOs to provide benefits for their client’s shared employees. This action, along with the passage of the Small Business Efficiency Act contained in the Tax Increase Prevention Act (H.R. 5771, Public Law 113‐295) which created the voluntary IRS PEO Certification Program, demonstrates the federal government’s recognition of the PEO industry and the important role it plays in supporting our nation’s small businesses.

With respect to PEOs, the final rule does two things. First, it states that a “bona fide” PEO is capable of establishing a MEP. The rule then creates a safe harbor criteria for determining whether a PEO that sponsors a MEP is performing essential employment functions.

A copy of the final rule can be found here.

A summary of the final rule can be found here.

A detailed analysis on this issue from the Groom Law Group can be found here.

A recording of a NAPEO-sponsored webinar on this issue can be found here.

A copy of NAPEO’s comments on the proposed rule can be found here.

NAPEO Article can be found:

https://www.napeo.org/advocacy/what-we-advocate/federal-government-affairs/peos-retirement-regulation/dol-meps-finalrule

PEO | PEOs | PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER ORGANIZATION

Category Archives: Underwriting