Category: Health

The Federal Government Is Taking Action Against COVID-19 Fraud

The federal government has responded to the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic with legislation to aid individuals and struggling businesses. One of the many laws created was the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), a $2 trillion federal appropriation addressing the economic fallout caused by COVID-19. Many are rightfully concerned about individuals aiming to take advantage of the vulnerability, panic, and available federal dollars during this time. In response, the federal government has vowed to aggressively take action against COVID-19 related fraud.

Fraud Committed Against Individuals

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced its first enforcement action against COVID-19 fraud in March 2020. A website, coronavirusmedicalkit.com, was offering access to World Health Organization (“WHO”) vaccine kits for a shipping cost of $4.95. However, no vaccine currently exists nor is a vaccine currently being distributed by the WHO. Once alerted of the website’s existence, U.S. District Judge, Robert Pitman immediately issued an injunction preventing any further public access to the site. The site operators are currently facing federal prosecution.

Fraud Committed Against the Federal Government

Opportunists are not only acting to deceive the public but are also acting to defraud the federal government. Recently, Samuel Yates, a Texas native attempted to defraud $5 million in federal funds. The Small Business Association (“SBA”) is providing loans to businesses through a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). The PPP allows employers to continue paying their employees during the pandemic. Yates applied for two loans. In one loan application, he sought $5 million claiming to have 400 employees with a $2 million monthly payroll expense. In another application, he claimed to have only 100 employees. Each application was submitted with a falsified list of employees created by an online name generator, and forged tax records. Yates was able to obtain $500,000 in loan proceeds before his scheme was uncovered. He is currently facing federal prosecution for bank fraud, wire fraud, false statements to a financial institution, and false statements to the SBA.

Christopher Parris, a Georgia resident, also attempted to defraud the federal government by selling millions of non-existent respirator masks. Unlike Yates, Parris was able to make millions on sales orders by misrepresenting himself as a supplier who could quickly obtain scarce protective equipment. His plan was uncovered just a few weeks ago after attempting to sell masks to the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”). The VA became suspicious of the price—which was about 15 times what it was paying amid the shortage, and alerted their Inspector General who brought in Homeland Security. Over $3.2 million was seized from Parris’ bank account related to this scheme, and he is currently facing federal prosecution for wire fraud.

Although enforcement action has been taken against individuals, companies should take note that fraud is being prioritized and aggressively prosecuted against businesses as well. Just last month, the Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) charged two companies with issuing misleading claims to the public. The first represented that it could slow the transmission of COVID-19 through thermal scanning equipment that could quickly detect individuals with fevers and would be immediately released in each state. The other offered a finger-prick test kit that could be used from home to detect whether someone was COVID-19 positive. Both claims were untrue and each company is facing federal charges for violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

These federal efforts mark the beginning of a shift, holding both individuals and companies accountable for COVID-19 related fraud. The Department of Homeland Security has noted that those taking advantage during this vulnerable time will inevitably increase. Inter-agency efforts, swift enforcement, and emerging legislation will likely follow in an effort to protect the public against all levels of COVID-19 related fraud. As they have during previous economic crises, whistleblowers will play a critical role in aiding these enforcement efforts.

Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP

For more on COVID-19 related fraud, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Beware the COVID-19 Cure: The FTC Issues Warnings to Products Making COVID-19 Treatment Claims

With no approved vaccine, the world waits for the next big breakthrough in 2020’s medical emergency. Some companies already claim to have found it – and subsequently received warning letters from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for misbranding. The FTC is targeting companies promoting products with supposed COVID-19 cures, treatment or prevention for making illegal, unsubstantiated claims.

One of the FTC’s objectives is eliminating false and misleading information from the marketplace. The FTC Act defines false advertising as misleading in a “material respect,” which includes both affirmative statements and failure to “reveal facts material in the light of [the product’s] representations[.]” See 15 USC 55(a)(1).

The FTC accomplishes its goal by sending warning letters. Under the FTC Act, a product may be misbranded if it is promoted as a prevention, cure or treatment for COVID-19 – when in fact it has not been approved for such use by the Food and Drug Administration. Since March 2020, the FTC has issued more than 200 warning letters to various businesses that advertise wellness products and other services that allegedly address COVID-19.

In some instances, the claims involved a gross exaggeration of the product’s effectiveness. For example, the website “NothingsIncurable.com” advertised products alleged to “literally make you invulnerable.” The FTC concluded those claims constituted misbranding. But even when promotional statements do not include an explicit falsehood, overpromotion still can cross into misbranding. For example, businesses that claimed, “[this product] will target and increase your immunity to help ward off the COVID-19 virus” or that recommended their products as “scientifically proven to support healthy immune function” also were found to be misbranded.

In another example, a company included “Coronavirus” in the website navigation menu that led consumers to therapy kits intended to provide “specific nutrition” to “balance the terrain of the body to make it conducive to” its particular function. Although the product description did not reference COVID-19, the FTC concluded that the website navigation menu was suggestive enough to warrant a warning for misbranding.

Summary

The FTC warning letters advise businesses that “under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq.,” they are prohibited from advertising “that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.” In addition, products that claim or imply the ability to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19 must be approved drugs under section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In each case, the FTC required a response from the business within 48 hours, detailing the actions taken to address the FTC’s concerns.

During this unprecedented health crisis, companies that sell consumer products should exercise caution when mentioning COVID-19 in advertising or promotional statements. Mentioning COVID-19 in relation to a product, even if the product is intended to address more routine health issues, could be misleading.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.

For more on COVID-19, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Mama Always Said, ‘Tell the Truth,’ Especially When It Comes to COVID-19

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic earlier this year, employers have been placed in the position of having to deal with numerous conflicting legal and moral obligations.  Prior to the pandemic, by virtue of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar state and local laws, employers were greatly limited in the questions they could ask perspective and current employees about their individual health conditions.  Similarly, unless they were seeking a workplace accommodation, employees did not have to disclose their personal health conditions to their employer.

In the battle to quell the pandemic, the rules have changed significantly.  Employers have greater leeway to ask questions related to the pandemic and employees who may have medical conditions previously unknown to the employer are disclosing them because of their concerns about increased susceptibility to becoming infected by the virus.  At the same time, getting quick and reliable information about an employee’s COVID-19 status may be difficult.  Frequently, an employee will only receive an initial verbal confirmation of a positive test and have to wait days for the written report.  Complicating matters are reports in the media of employees who have falsely told their employer they tested positive.  In some of the reported cases, upon hearing of a positive test, the employer shut down its entire operation for a deep cleaning only to later have the employee retract their statement they were positive.  In some of these falsification incidents, employees are now facing criminal prosecution.  What is an employer to do?

Trust but Verify

The vast majority of employees are honest and deeply concerned about their employer’s response to COVID-19. Therefore, if an employee reports they have tested positive, the employer should not wait for written verification and immediately begin to follow the Centers for Disease Control or local health authority protocols.  At the same time, employers should take all possible steps to verify the accuracy of what the employee is reporting.

In cases of suspected fraud, here are some steps an employer can and should take:

  1. Require the employee to provide written confirmation.  As noted above, employers should understand that a written confirmation of a positive COVID-19 test may not be immediately available to the employee.  Many test sites provide only a verbal response with the written verification following days later.  Employers should still require written confirmation of the verbal positive result.
  2. While waiting for written confirmation of test results, ask the employee specifically where and when they went for testing and verify the accuracy of that information.  In one case reported in the media, a suspicious HR manager determined that the hospital where the employee claimed to have been tested was not even performing COVID-19 tests.
  3. Carefully examine any written documentation provided by the employee.  Doctor’s notes and other non-detailed information can be verified by a Google search to determine that the practitioner is real.  A phone call to that practitioner should be able to easily confirm the truth of the matter on the documentation.
  4. Communicate to employees in advance that falsification of employee records and information, especially something as critical as a positive COVID-19 test, can be grounds for discipline, including termination of employment.

© 2020 Foley & Lardner LLP

For more on employer’ COVID-19 considerations, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

COVID-19 Daily Self Screening Video

Daily self-screening is one of the simplest ways to help stop the spread of COVID-19. Designed to educate employees, COVID-19 Daily Self-Screening video provides an overview of symptoms and steps a staff member can take to help break the chain of transmission, if they do get sick. Part of a series aimed at supporting a “Work Together, Healthy Together” workplace health and safety program, our videos are intended to be shared with you workforce. In connection with Polsinelli’s efforts to provide resources and support to businesses in our own communities and beyond, we hope you and your team find this valuable.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

The CDC Warns Against Using Antibody Testing Results to Make Workplace Decisions

This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”) released interim guidelines addressing COVID-19 antibody testing. The CDC expressed concerns about the current accuracy of antibody testing and advised businesses against using the results of antibody testing (also known as serologic testing) to make any decisions about returning workers to the workplace.

Although the guidance notes that antibodies may offer some protection from reinfection and may decrease the likelihood that an individual infects others, the CDC has determined that there are myriad issues with the effectiveness of current antibody testing, including widespread false positive results. The CDC guidance states that “additional data are needed before modifying public health recommendations based on [antibody] test results, including decisions on discontinuing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment.” The CDC also recommends that even if individuals have tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies, they should continue to take precautionary measures (such as wearing facemasks) to prevent the spread of infection.

As the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has not weighed in on this issue to date, it is still unclear whether employers’ use of antibody testing to inform workplace return decisions might implicate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or other discrimination laws.  But given the direct affirmative guidance from the CDC, employers should continue to refrain from using antibody or serologic testing results to determine which workers may return to the workplace.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY Corbin Carter at Mintz.
For more CDC Guidance, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Temperature Checks: Three Things to Know Before Screening Employees and Customers

As businesses begin the calculated process of re-opening their doors to employees and customers, many are considering implementing temperature checks to monitor for at least one known COVID-19 symptom – the fever.

Beyond nailing down the logistics of temperature checks (e.g., who will perform them, has that person been trained, do employees need to be paid while waiting in line, how will social distancing be maintained, etc.) there are several significant legal considerations that should be evaluated before implementation.

The Illinois Biometric Privacy Act

Some temperature screening devices utilize facial-recognition technology to quickly identify those with fever so that they can be promptly tracked down and removed from the facility. While these systems provide logistical advantages, especially to large employers and retailers, they likely implicate provisions of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA) which can lead to costly litigation and result in stiff penalties for anyone who violates the statute, even unwittingly.

According to BIPA, businesses utilizing this type of facial-recognition technology must obtain advance, written consent from the individuals to be scanned, and must also maintain a publicly available policy that specifies information regarding the collection, use, storage, and destruction of individuals’ biometric information. And, again, these policies and consents must be executed and implemented before temperature screenings begin. It is, therefore, critical to determine whether your temperature screening devices perform facial recognition scans or capture other biometric information.

Confidentiality of Employee Information

Employers screening employee temperatures must also remember they are conducting a “medical examination,” as defined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and would be wise to adhere to the EEOC’s guidance on the issue. This means information collected about employees’ temperature, such as the temperature readings themselves, or the fact that an employee had or has a fever, must be treated as confidential medication information and maintained in a confidential file separate from an employee’s personnel file. Employers should also take care to not divulge the identity of any employee sent home with fever, absent consent from the employee to share that information with other personnel, or a strict need-to-know among involved supervisor(s) or members of human resources.

The California Consumer Privacy Act

California’s sweeping new privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), contains broad protection of consumers’ “personal information,” and requires businesses subject to the statute to, among other things, notify consumers when their personal information is being collected. Though body temperature is not explicitly mentioned in the statute, the definition of “personal information” is broad, and includes information that “identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer …” It includes biometric information. Whether an individual’s temperature constitutes personal information is up for some debate, but debates often lead to costly litigation, and it is easy enough to amend CCPA notices to include temperature until that debate is resolved in an effort to avoid litigation altogether.

So, if a business is subject to the CCPA and intends to collect employee or customer temperatures (whether or not with the use of biometric technology), it should consider updating its CCPA notices to include “temperature” (and, if applicable, scans of face geometry) to the list of personal information collected.

© 2020 Much Shelist, P.C.

For more employer COVID-19 guidance, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

CDC’s Detailed Guidance to Reopen Businesses

The Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) has issued 60 pages of detailed guidance to reopen businesses, health care facilities and providers, schools, transit, and other industries. This guidance also provides information regarding testing and data to assist with exposure and risk concerns for those industries. The following is an overview of the topics addressed in the newly released guidance.

  • High Risk Employees: Employers with workers at high risk are recommended that they self-identify and employers should avoid making unnecessary medical inquiries. Employers are encouraged to offer options to telework if possible, or duties that minimize their contact with customers and other employees.
  • Restaurants and Bars: Restaurants and bars may reopen utilizing social distancing and reduced capacity. The CDC also recommends formal policies in place to enforce proper hygiene, including the use of cloth facemasks and encourage employees to stay at home if ill. Employers are advised to follow applicable OSHA guidance as well.
  • Surveillance Systems: The CDC sets forth sample surveillance systems to assist with capturing all parameters of the pandemic, including testing, contract tracing and other guidance regarding limiting exposure. This guidance offers details for local and state health departments related to testing efforts and best practices to assist with controlling the spread of the disease and gating criteria.
  • Schools: The CDC recommends that schools remain closed and continue virtual learning. Schools may slowly reopen pursuant to the reopening guidelines, including recommendations for spacing students six feet apart and staggering lunch periods, along with increased social distancing for students and staff. If an individual is diagnosed with COVID-19 schools may consider closing for a short time (1-2 days) for cleaning and disinfection.
  • Summer Camps: At this time, the CDC recommends that summer camps provide services only to children of essential workers and those who live in local geographical area.
  • Child Care: Child care programs should be gearing up to reopen and the guidance sets forth interim guidance to assist with the gradual scale up for operations. Step one restricts daycares to children of essential workers; step two expands daycare services to all children with enhanced social distancing measures; Step three remaining open for all children with social distancing measures.
  • Mass Transit: Mass transit is recommended to consider revising its routes based on local virus spread and advised to coordinate with local health officials.

The list above is not exhaustive, and the latest guidance provides roadmaps for businesses in various industries as they navigate this new normal. Specific to businesses, the CDC’s May 21, 2020 changes include:

  • Updated cleaning and disinfection guidance
  • Updated best practices for conducting social distancing
  • Updated strategies and recommendations that can be implemented now to respond to COVID-19

Related CDC links for businesses include:

For guidance on reopening within Wisconsin, review the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation’s (WEDC) Reopen Guidelines linked here. WEDC offered general guidelines as well as customized guidance for each industry.

© 2020 Davis|Kuelthau, s.c. All Rights Reserved

For more on business reopening, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Legislation Enabling Policyholders to Obtain Insurance Coverage for Coronavirus Claims is Constitutional Part 1

On top of its human toll, the coronavirus pandemic has had massive economic effects.  Stay-at-home orders, which remain in place in much of the United States, have resulted in massive layoffs, spiraling claims for unemployment compensation, and unprecedented federal aid.

Many businesses affected by the pandemic have turned to their insurers seeking “business interruption” coverage.  As its name suggests, this coverage typically reimburses the policyholder for costs incurred when the business is unable to open.  Insurers have denied policyholders’ pandemic-related claims, contending that they only have to cover business interruption that results from a “physical injury” and that the damage that results from infestation with the coronavirus or a governmental shutdown order does not constitute “physical injury.”  Insurers have also cited the exclusions in many of their policies that purport to bar coverage for virus-related injuries.

Legislative Responses to the Crisis

One response to the insurance industry’s position has been introduction of legislation voiding virus exclusions and/or defining physical injury to include coronavirus.  New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina are all considering such legislation.  The proposed bills generally provide that, notwithstanding any other law or policy language to the contrary, every insurance policy that insures against loss or damage to property which includes the loss of use and occupancy and business interruption shall be construed to include coverage for business interruption resulting from COVID-19.  The bills typically provide mechanisms for insurers to seek reimbursement from a state established and managed fund for losses paid related to COVID-19.

Insurance Industry Responses to the Proposed Legislation

Predictably, the insurance industry has objected to this legislation.  For example, in a recent interview, Evan Greenberg, CEO of Chubb, said in an interview on CNBC state governments can’t force insurance companies to cover incidents not included in the policy.  “You can’t just retroactively change a contract. That is plainly unconstitutional,” Greenberg told “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer.  See https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/16/chubb-ceo-making-insurers-cover-pandemic-losses-is-unconstitutional.html.

Law firms that defend insurers have similarly argued that “This proposed legislation …., is unfair and is likely unconstitutional, as it appears to run afoul of the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.”   That Clause prohibits States from “pass[ing] any . . .  Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . . .”  U. S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 10.  The insurer lawyers contend that “the proposed legislation would substantially impair insurance policies, as [it] would operate to rewrite policies to cause them to cover a risk they do not currently cover.…”   While acknowledging that the Supreme Court has upheld state laws that impair contracts, so long as they are reasonably tailored to fulfill a legitimate interest, insurer counsel contend that such laws are still unconstitutional.  Counsel claim that the proposed laws do not fulfill a legitimate interest because they “arguably benefit[] only a narrow class of businesses; the public at-large is only an indirect beneficiary.”  Id.  And counsel assert that the proposed laws are not “appropriate and reasonable” because they “attempt[] to shift the responsibility of providing financial assistance to small businesses from the government to certain insurance companies. . . .” Id.

Why the Insurance Industry Is Wrong about the Contracts Clause

This analysis is simply mistaken.  The case law interpreting the Contracts Clause demonstrates that legislation designed to provide relief to policyholders is constitutional.

As discussed below, under the cases, courts have established a balancing test that weighs the extent to which the challenged legislation contravenes contractual expectations against the purpose of the legislation and the means used to achieve that purpose.  Under that test, the proposed legislation is constitutional.

Basic Principles

The range of state legislative actions that can affect contractual relationships is broad. For instance, a state statute may render a contract wholly illegal.  See Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814, 819 (1879) (upholding state statute outlawing lottery against claim that it violated contract rights of lottery company).  Or a statute may directly change the term of a contract.  E.g., United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 3 (1977) (state law abrogated covenant in contract with holders of state bonds); Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 416 (1934) (state law modified foreclosure provisions in mortgages).  Even a law that has nothing to do with either the express terms of the contract or its subject matter can affect the parties’ allocation of risk, such as a law that changes the statute of limitations for contract actions.  See J. Ely, Jr., Whatever Happened to the Contract Clause?, 4 Charleston L. Rev. 371, 377 & n.48 (2010) (discussing Contracts Clause cases involving statutes of limitations).

Yet, as the Supreme Court has made clear, “it is not every modification of a contractual promise that impairs the obligation of contract under federal law.”  City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 506–07 (1965).  Even though the language of the Contracts Clause is  “facially absolute,” Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 410 (1983), “the prohibition against impairing the obligation of contracts is not to be read literally,” Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. at 502.  Rather, “[t]he States must possess broad power to adopt general regulatory measures without being concerned the private contracts will be impaired, or even destroyed, as a result.”  United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 22.  In other words, the ban on impairment of contracts “must be accommodated to the inherent police power of the State ‘to safeguard the vital interests of its people.’’’  Energy Reserves Group, 459 U.S. at 410, quoting Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. at 434.

Though not specifically referenced in the Constitution, the “police power” gives state legislatures broad leeway to pass laws to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.  The classic case is Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814 (1879).  There, a state statute outlawing lotteries was challenged by a company that had previously obtained a charter from the state to run a lottery.  Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the state’s power to shield the public from the evils of gambling trumped the contract rights of the lottery company.  Id. at 819.  Over time, the definition of the police power expanded to include a wide variety of laws designed to protect the public.  See, e.g., Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 444 (1934) (Great Depression “furnished a proper occasion for the exercise of the reserved power of the State to protect the vital interests of the community” by providing for mortgage relief for financially strapped homeowners); Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905) (even if contract for sale of alcohol was permissible when made, state could later prohibit such sales without violating Contracts Clause).

As we’ll discuss in the next part of this post, since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has generally applied these principles to uphold state legislation against challenges brought under the Contracts Clause.  We’ll also discuss how these basic principles have been applied by lower courts in insurance coverage cases and why we think the proposed legislation passes muster under the Constitution.

© 2020 Gilbert LLP

ARTICLE BY Mark A. Packman of Gilbert LLP.
For more business policies & the coronavirus, see the National Law Review Insurance, Reinsurance, and Surety law section.

Michigan Ramps Up Workplace Safety Regulations and Enforcement Powers Under New Executive Order

Gov. Whitmer released detailed new workplace safety regulations on Monday, May 18, 2020 through Executive Order 2020-91 (Order). The Order also provides the State of Michigan with enhanced enforcement capabilities and greater consequences for employers who disregard the rules. The Order does not identify an expiration date for the new workplace rules.

New Workplace Safety Rules

The Order sets out 17 general workplace safety rules that apply to all employers who are conducting in-person operations during the coronavirus pandemic, pursuant to Executive Order 2020-92. While some of these workplace safety rules are restated from previous executive orders, others – such as the requirement that employers designate one or more workplace supervisors to oversee COVID-19 control strategies – are new. New rules include mandated COVID-19 employee training and the development of a daily entry self-screening protocol for all employers.

In addition to the general workplace safety rules, the Order identifies numerous industry-specific workplace safety rules to combat the spread of COVID-19. Industries that must comply with these specific rules are: employers whose work is performed outdoors; construction; manufacturing; research laboratories (excluding labs that perform diagnostic testing); retail stores that are open for in person sales; offices; and restaurants and bars.

Enhanced Enforcement Powers

Previously, employers who failed to follow COVID-19 workplace safety rules were subject to a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and/or 90 days in jail. The Order now provides two new routes for enforcement. First, the workplace safety rules are given the force and effect of regulations adopted by the state agencies that oversee workplace health and safety. Such agencies are given full authority to enforce the rules, and any challenges to penalties must move through the agencies’ administrative appeals process. Second, the Order states that violations of the workplace safety rules are also violations of the Michigan Occupational Health and Safety Act (MIOSHA). As a result, Michigan’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration will have the authority to conduct investigations into violations, issue penalties and distribute cease operation orders.

In addition, because the Order mandates employee training on how to report unsafe working conditions, employers should anticipate the possibility of such internal reports or MIOSHA investigations. Employers should also be mindful not to retaliate against employees who file such complaints.

© 2020 Varnum LLP

For more on worker safety measures in states and federally, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment Law section.

Department of Banking and Insurance Mandates Insurance Premium Refunds

On May 12, 2020, the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance issued Bulletin No. 20-22.  As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting reduction in loss exposure for insurers, the Department has ordered insurers to make an initial premium refund or other adjustment for certain specified lines of insurance.  Premium refunds are required for the following types of insurance: (1) medical malpractice insurance; (2) commercial liability insurance; (3) commercial multiple-peril insurance; (4) workers compensation insurance; (5) commercial automobile insurance; (6) private passenger automobile insurance; and (7) any other line of coverage where the measures of risk have become substantially overstated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The premium refund may be provided as a premium credit, a reduction in premium, a return of premium, dividend, or other appropriate premium adjustment.  The premium refunds must be implemented “as quickly as practicable,” but in no event later than June 15, 2020.

Insurers may also provide additional premium relief to individual policyholders on a case-by-case basis for recent, current, and upcoming policy periods or any portion thereof.  Examples of reclassifications set forth in the Bulletin include, but are not limited to: (1) reclassifying a personal automobile exposure from “commute use” to “pleasure use”; (2) reclassifying a physician practice to part-time status; or (3) excluding payroll for employees who are being paid but not actively working.

Insurers are required to notify each affected policyholder no later than June 15, 2020 regarding the amount of the refund or adjustment.  In addition, insurers are required to provide an explanation of the basis for the adjustment, including a description of the policy period that was the basis of the premium refund and any changes to the classification or exposure basis of the affected policyholder.

While the across the board initial premium refunds referenced above will not require any action by individual policyholders, businesses and individuals should review their current and projected activities and reach out to their insurer to see if there is an opportunity for an additional “case-by-case” premium reduction.  For example, if a physician practice has reduced hours for its physicians so that all physicians are working part-time, this may provide the opportunity for a further reduction in medical malpractice premiums.

The text of the bulletin can be found here.

 

© 2020 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved
For more on COVID-19s effects on Insurance, see the Insurance Reinsurance and Surety section of the National Law Review