Tag Archives: Claims Management

Immediate Vault Immediate Access

Understanding New York’s New Insurance Disclosure Requirements

Posted on by

If your organization operates or could be sued in New York, there has been recent activity on the legal and regulatory risk landscape that risk professionals should be prepared for.

New York’s newly-enacted Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Requirements legislation opens the door for defendants to request that organizations disclose the details of their commercial insurance programs that may apply to a judgment in the case. These details include policy limits and potentially even access to your claims adjusters. For those with more complex risk financing structures, the law may also lead to the misinterpretation of the organization’s coverages.

For the greatest success in complying with this new regulation, risk professionals must become their legal department’s greatest ally, stepping in to lend their expertise to prevent potential confusion and errors. Risk professionals can be integral in keeping sensitive information confidential, monitoring all disclosure requests and alerting their teams to any discrepancies in the interpretation of the shared information.

Additionally, risk professionals should proactively identify the relevant policies for counsel, mindful that the policy or program must potentially respond to the plaintiff’s claim.

What are the New York Disclosure Law’s requirements and how do they impact your insurance program?

The New York law requires that an insured defendant disclose information about any insurance policies sold or delivered in New York that could be applicable to a plaintiff’s claim. This requires careful assessment to ensure compliance while avoiding potentially unnecessary insurance disclosures.

Depending on the claimed amount and a program’s retention levels, disclosures likely include primary insurance policies and may include excess and umbrella policies as well. 

The disclosure requirements extend to various risk financing structures, including captives, self-insurance programs, risk retention groups and surplus lines insurers. Many claims may not reach the retentions, arguably rendering the insurance policies nonresponsive to the claim.

Other than in personal injury protection cases, the New York law requires that insured defendants provide proof of insurance to other parties within 90 days after answering the complaint. This could lead to the disclosure of incorrect insurance information. To address that risk, risk professionals can instruct counsel to obtain the proper COI for a particular claim and advise that it may need to fine-tune their COI process with outside vendors or brokers.

In the cases where arguments are made that COIs are not sufficient proof of insurance, insureds should be prepared to disclose redacted portions of their declaration pages. 

The New York law also requires insured defendants to identify the claims adjustor assigned to the claim, including a potentially surprising level of detail such as the adjustor’s direct email address. It is critical to keep claims adjusters informed and risk professionals should alert their adjustors before this disclosure is made. Immediately report to counsel any plaintiff communications to the adjustor.

What steps can risk managers take to ensure compliance?

If possible, a risk professional or an attorney familiar with insurance coverage should assume responsibility for an organization’s compliance with these disclosure requirements in all New York cases. This will be instrumental in ensuring responses are uniform and avoiding disclosure errors. 

Creating a checklist, as well as a readily accessible library of COIs, redacted declarations pages, and other pertinent information can help keep the organization compliant with New York’s law. Although there might be differing disclosure requirements, organizations with larger footprints should consider extending this structure across other states as well.

By taking these steps, risk professionals can minimize insurance disclosure disputes, assist with their organization’s compliance efforts, and avoid unnecessary interference with an organization’s insurance program.

Proactive Tips for Businesses Facing Hail Damage Claims

Posted on by

Last week, a severe thunderstorm unleashed massive hailstones in Alberta, Canada, damaging dozens of cars and unleashing potentially record-breaking hailstones the size of grapefruits. While the stones were notable, the storm was less of a rarity—indeed, hail is becoming increasingly common and increasingly costly as a natural catastrophe peril around the world. In 2020, Aon’s Global Catastrophe Recap identified hail damage in a severe thunderstorm as the driver of one of Canada’s costliest severe weather events on record. In 2021, insurers faced multiple billion-dollar loss events resulting from severe convective storms in the United States, with the greatest damage inflicted by hail that impacted the Plains, Midwest, Southeast and Northeast.

“Public perception often assumes that tornadoes drive the bulk of annual severe convective storm (SCS) damage costs,” said Steve Bowen, managing director and head of catastrophe insight on Aon’s Impact Forecasting team. “The reality is that large hail typically accounts for a majority of thunderstorm-related losses in North America during any given year.”

Further, North America is not alone in facing this peril, as hail also caused significant recent damage events in parts of Europe last year, struck Australia yesterday, and NOAA reports China, Russia, India and Northern Italy are all prone to damaging hailstorms.

As companies assess their natural disaster preparedness, there are some proactive measures that should be taken specifically for hail to leave organizations best positioned for any resulting insurance claims. Many commercial property policies contain provisions that any lawsuit against an insurer must be filed within one year following the “inception of loss,” otherwise it is barred. In other words, the “inception of loss” date starts the one-year clock ticking. The question then becomes, when exactly is that date? The Wisconsin Supreme Court hit this issue head-on in the case of Borgen v. Economy Preferred Ins. Co. In this 1993 opinion, the court determined that the phrase “inception of loss” in the context of hail damage essentially means “the date of the specific hail storm,” not “the date I discovered the hail damage.”

In 2018, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals took things a step further in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Lowen Valley View, L.L.C. In that case, a hotel filed a lawsuit against its insurer for refusing to cover hail-related roof damage under a commercial property insurance policy. The 5th Circuit agreed with the insurer’s argument that: 1) several hail storms had struck the vicinity of the hotel in the several years preceding the claim; 2) only one of those storms fell within the relevant coverage period; and 3) the record lacked reliable evidence permitting a jury to determine which of those storms, alone or in combination, damaged the hotel. The 5th Circuit further rejected the hotel’s engineering report, which asserted the subject storm was the “most likely” cause of the damage, deeming it insufficient.

Taken together, these decisions can blindside businesses that believe their insurance policies will automatically respond in the event of hail damage.

Let’s say you operate a business in Plano, Texas, and have a commercial property policy with a renewal date of January 1, 2022. You’ve noticed some recent leaks over the past week in your 8-year-old roof. Based on this discovery, you enlist a roofing contractor to investigate further. You learn that the roof needs to be replaced due to the existence of hail damage, so you submit a claim to your insurance carrier. Now, consider Plano has had at least 11 significant hail strikes since your roof was installed, according to StormerSite: 

Storm Date                 Min. Hail Size Range (Max)
11/10/2021                         1.00”
4/23/2021                          1.00” (up to 2.00”)
5/18/2019                          1.00”
3/24/2019                          1.25” (up to 1.75”)
6/6/2018                            1.00”
4/6/2018                            1.50” (up to 2.00”)
4/21/2017                          1.75”
4/11/2016                          1.50” (up to 2.50”)
3/23/2016                          1.25” (up to 2.00”)
4/27/2014                          1.25”
4/3/2014                            1.75”

Based on the Borgen case, the relevant “inception of loss” date would be the most recent hail storm on November 10, 2021, and each specific storm prior to that. This would mean any claims potentially implicating the events on May 18, 2019, and earlier could be time-barred, assuming your prior insurance policies contain the one-year filing limitation mentioned above. Given the number of equivalent hail strikes over the course of those eight years, you will likely have an uphill battle under Lowen Valley View in attributing the recent April 2021 and November 2021 storms to a loss under your current policy.

Even if it were somehow possible to assign each item of roof damage to a particular hailstorm—and further that statute of limitations issues would not limit recovery almost entirely—the number of storms creates another problem. With 11 storms occurring over the life of your roof, the insurer could argue that would mean 11 separate occurrences, which in turn would mean having to go through 11 separate deductibles before you ever saw a single dollar of insurance proceeds. Depending on the amount of your deductible, this means recovery could be impossible as a practical matter.

Read together, these rulings put the onus on business owners in areas at risk for hail damage to proactively conduct at least annual inspections to determine the existence of any roof damage potentially attributable to a particular insurance policy. It further puts the onus on business owners to understand the insurance claim process, including seeking tolling agreements to extend the deadline for filing a lawsuit.

5 Best Practices for Effective Claims Reviews

Posted on by

With the cost of insurance for businesses rising across many types of coverage, staying on top of trends in the claims portfolio is more important than ever. Spotting problem areas and opportunities sooner makes it easier to develop and implement steps to reduce risk pre-loss and better control costs post-loss. For this reason, many insurers and TPAs promise to conduct claims reviews with their business customers on a regular basis, but the rigor can vary greatly. Practices that have been common historically often lack the nuance and precision that can unlock the maximum benefit for each customer’s unique situation.

Here are five best practices for a wide variety of customers across a range of industries:

1. Assemble the right team

Typically, only the person overseeing claims at the business attends the claims review with key claims staff from the carrier. However, this small team limits the potential for brainstorming solutions and getting full buy-in to implement them. In addition to claims experts, it may also be helpful for the carrier’s loss control team to attend, as well as agent/broker staff.

buy isofair online metabolicleader.com/p7pmm/img/jpg/isofair.html no prescription pharmacy

From the business customer side, it is helpful to include all key personnel who can facilitate immediate decisions that will impact the ultimate resolution of the claim in an efficient and timely manner or provide other insightful information. This often includes the risk manager, and may also encompass employees from legal, human resources, safety, operations and even the CFO, in some cases.

2. Develop a clear understanding of the customer to set the claims review objective

Broadly speaking, the goal is always to minimize loss costs to help manage the price and coverage of the overall insurance program. However, each business and claims portfolio is unique. One company may be most concerned with how claims reserves are affecting budgets. Another company may have an unusually high experience modification rate that they want to bring down by reducing the frequency of worker injuries. Yet another company may be changing part of their operation and want to monitor claims activity associated with it more closely than business-as-usual activities. The policyholder’s unique objectives should drive decisions about how often to conduct the claims reviews, what types of claims to include and where to dive into the greatest detail.

3. Fully understand and account for the impact of claims on the insurance program

In the initial design of the insurance program, certain coverages may have been limited due to a problematic claims record. For instance, frequent third-party claims for premises liability may have led to restrictions on Med Pay coverage or a higher deductible to give the customer a bigger stake in safety measures.

buy wellbutrin online metabolicleader.com/p7pmm/img/jpg/wellbutrin.html no prescription pharmacy

Or perhaps the customer hoped for a loss-sensitive program but could only secure a guaranteed cost program due to lack of an internal pre- and post-loss management platform. The claims review should be designed to account for how frequency and severity may affect underwriting decisions so that the policyholder can move toward its coverage objective

4. Choose claims for review according to objectives, not simply dollar value

The default choice for what claims to review is often based on dollar value—e.g., all open claims with incurred losses of $25,000 or more. This approach may miss underlying trends that could lead to severe loss, however. For instance, perhaps a restaurant chain experiences a high frequency of slip-and-fall claims from workers in its kitchens. While these may all have been minor, but it may only be a matter of time until a severe injury occurs.

buy zyprexa online metabolicleader.com/p7pmm/img/jpg/zyprexa.html no prescription pharmacy

With the objective to reduce frequency and the risk of serious injury, the claims review should examine all slip-and-fall claims using data and analytics to uncover causal factors such as food and liquid dropped on floors or seasonal workers with little safety training.

5. Track reserving on a micro level relative to all factors that can affect open claims

Typically, reserving is only tracked from a macro perspective, but this can overlook a variety of factors that could help better manage reserves and ultimate outcomes. For example, are the latest technologies being consistently used to manage costs? Advances in artificial intelligence and data and analytics now allow us to identify treatment providers associated with the best outcomes for injured workers, but how well are companies taking advantage of the recommendations? Early resolution techniques for auto and general liability claims may lower the ultimate cost of claims but cause a short-term bump in claims payments that needs to be accounted for in the customer’s budgeting process.

Potential Benefits

Claims reviews based on these best practices can yield significant benefits, especially when used as part of a holistic approach to managing risk and reducing losses. For example, an early claims review for a new manufacturing customer identified sprain and strain injuries as a problem area. The loss control team then surveyed the manufacturer’s operations and uncovered increased risk due to various manual lifting tasks, such as loading 8-foot-tall plastic silos with heavy equipment in a confined space. Based on that finding, the insurer’s team conducted onsite job hazard analysis supervisory training that included a safe lifting program, online courses and ergonomic risk assessments on a variety of tasks. As a result, within about two years, the program cut the manufacturer’s workers compensation loss ratio roughly in half.

Four Reasons To Stay The Course With Captives

Posted on by

As the overall insurance market remains in a “soft” environment with rates generally decreasing, particularly in the workers compensation market, many captive participants might be questioning if now is the time to exit their captives and explore more traditional insurance options. While this is an understandable response, one of the main reasons for creating your own or joining a group captive is a long-term commitment to a strategy of retaining risk in order to reduce costs over time.

Many companies historically turned to captives when insurance rates were high because they offered:

  • better control over claims handling and loss control efforts,
  • insulation from the cyclical swings and uncertainties of the commercial insurance marketplace, and
  • lower operating costs than conventional insurance models.

Additionally, there is a far greater return on loss-prevention and claim-mitigation investments. Though rates are currently dropping, here are four reasons why most business owners would still benefit from remaining with their captives.

1. The Privileges Of Membership
Those companies that qualify are afforded benefits, including the possibility of reduced premiums and recouped savings over time. Keep in mind, one of the biggest drivers of value in being part of a captive means being insulated from future negative fluctuations in the market. Try not to lose sight of this, especially when rates drop and seem enticing.

2. No “Take Backs”
Leaving a captive can be costly, and reentry is not guaranteed. Companies considering the idea of leapfrogging from their captives while rates are low and then jumping back in when the rates increase may face hefty repercussions. This is particularly true for companies that are members of group captives, when it’s possible that other members of the captive may not accept them back, particularly if they were saddled with absorbing the exiting member’s share of losses.

3. Preparing For That Rainy Day
If you jump ship from your captive, you will most likely have lingering financial obligations if losses deteriorate for the whole group, and you could be on the hook for an assessment. By remaining a captive member, even if you are paying more in premium, you are adding money to cover a possible deficiency from prior years. If actual losses turn out to be better than projected, you can recoup—via dividends or reduced future premiums—a greater percentage of those savings than you could from traditional insurers.

4. Control Your Destiny
The market forces that are creating lower rates right now—such as decreasing medical costs or legislative changes that result in lower workers compensation costs—are also positively affecting captives. By staying with your captive, you can enjoy the upside of improvements in claims as your own losses go down, resulting in lower future costs and the possibility of recouping additional profits.

Overall, captives provide more control than traditional insurers through greater return on loss-prevention and claim-mitigation investments and through access to higher savings. Cheaper market rates can create an understandable knee-jerk reaction that may cause you to consider leaving your captive but remember your initial motives for joining. Captives are great alternatives to traditional insurer solutions, and staying the course will most likely work in your favor.