Tag: Insurance

Important New Law in UK Relating to Payment of Insurance Claims

insuranceAt the moment, English law says that insurers and reinsurers are not under a positive duty to pay valid claims within a reasonable time.  If an insurer/reinsurer delays in paying a claim, or fails to pay at all, an insured/reinsured can only claim the sums due under the policy and interest.  An insured/reinsured cannot claim damages for late payment if it suffers additional losses by reason of a delay.

That position will change after 4 May 2017 when certain parts of the Enterprise Act 2016 introduce a new section 13A into the Insurance Act 2015.

The result of the new legislation is that any insurance/reinsurance (including retrocession) policy issued or renewed after 4 May 2017, and which is subject to English law, will contain an implied term that requires an insurer/reinsurer to pay claims within a reasonable period.  If they act in breach of such a term, then they are potentially liable to pay contractual damages to the insured/reinsured as well as due under the policy and interest.

Going forward there is likely to be debate about what constitutes “reasonable time,” but it will include giving time to an insurers/reinsurer to investigate and assess the claim. And what is “reasonable” will turn on issues such as the type of insurance in question, the size and complexity of the claim, compliance with relevant statutory and regulatory rules/guidance and factors outside an insurer/reinsurer’s control.

The new legislation also provides a defence to an insurers/reinsurer and they will not be in breach of the implied term if they can prove that they have reasonable grounds for not paying the claim. The manner in which the claim is handled will therefore be a factor in determining whether there has been a breach of the implied term.

An insured/reinsured must issue the court claim for damages within one year of the date that the insurer/reinsurer pays all sums due under the insurance contract. This introduces a new limitation period for legal claims under English law.

Insurers and reinsurers should note that it will be possible to contract out of the new provisions provided they do so in a transparent manner and draws this to the insured’s attention before the policy is entered into.

Comment

Whilst on the face of it this is all good news for insureds, insurers can take comfort from the fact that claims for breach of the implied term will not be straightforward and may not therefore be widespread.  In particular, insureds/reinsureds will still have to satisfy the Court on issues such as causation, remoteness and mitigation before a claim can succeed.  And insurers/reinsurers will only be liable for foreseeable losses suffered by their insureds/reinsureds.

Going forward, practical steps to be taken by insurers include responding promptly to an insured’s request for claims’ information, continuing to carefully document the claims process and to consider making interim payments to an insured if appropriate. These will significantly improve the chances of an insurer/reinsurer successfully defending any legal actions taken by insureds/reinsured alleging a failure to pay a claim within a reasonable time and claiming damages.

ARTICLE BY Garon Anthony of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2017 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Hurricane Matthew Insurance Tips for Businesses

Hurricane map, Hurricane MatthewWith Hurricane Matthew downgraded to a tropical cyclone, it is time for affected businesses, property owners, and insurers to focus on quantifying the amount of damage caused by the storm.  By some estimates, Hurricane Matthew will generation over 100,000 insurance claims and between $4 billion and $7.5 billion in property losses.  Although the focus is typically on pre-storm preparation, the immediate steps taken this week will be important to any business owner seeking to present an adequate claim to its insurer for property damage.

Safety is always the first priority. Do not put yourself, your employees, or first responders in danger. Currently in North Carolina, the predictions are for worsening flooding in many low lying parts of the eastern part of the state, with peak flooding not reaching some areas until Wednesday (four days after the storm passed).

Once the threat of imminent danger has receded, the next step should be to document your loss.  Thorough documentation of the damage to your property will be invaluable.  Hopefully you will also have photographs or video from before the storm, so that any claim presented to an insurer can show both the before and after photographs of the condition of the property.  Because cell phones and digital cameras are not limited by physical film, do not hesitate to shoot dozens or hundreds of photographs.  Videos may be helpful as well.

At the same time you are documenting the damage, you should immediately put your insurer on notice of the loss.  You should call your insurer to begin putting them on notice as soon as you arrive at the property if you assess any physical loss.  After you give initial notice, you can follow up with complete details, provide the photographs you have taken, etc.  The insurer will likely eventually send an adjuster to physical inspect the damage to the property.

It is important to quickly give notice for several reasons.  As a legal matter, giving prompt notice prevents having a claim denied by an insurer on the basis of a late notice defense.  As a practical matter, because of the large number of claims that will be filed within a short period of time, some insurers will likely handle the claims on a first-come, first-serve basis.  Getting your claim in quickly gets you closer to the front of the line.

If immediate repairs are needed, take plenty of additional photos of the damage, the repairs in progress, and the final repairs.  Maintain copies of documentation regarding the repairs, and provide those to your insurer.  If your business had to buy or rent additional equipment as a result of the damage, or you suffered inventory loss, you will want to maintain detailed documentation of these costs as well.

Finally, whichever employee you assign to provide information to the insurer should maintain a journal or notebook.  This should include copies of all documents submitted to the insurance company, along with a log of all conversations with the insurer or its representatives.  The log should include the contact information of anyone from the insurer that you have contacted with, the date and time, the topics you discussed, and any additional information which you believe may be useful in the future or in the event of a dispute.

ARTICLE BY Jonathan Reich of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

Copyright © 2016 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Uber-Complicated: Insurance Gaps for Rideshare Vehicles Can Create Uncertainty for Passengers and Drivers

Many of us have come to enjoy the convenience of summoning a ride via our Smartphones with a rideshare service company such as Uber, Lyft, or Sidecar.  However, significant issues exist over whether rideshare vehicles have adequate insurance coverage to compensate people injured in accidents involving those vehicles.

If one is injured by a Greyhound bus, for example, there is little question that Greyhound likely would have adequate insurance to cover any injuries and likely would have sufficient resources to compensate the injured party even without insurance.

By contrast, if one is injured by a rideshare driver, there are several potential obstacles to securing adequate compensation.

First, the rideshare company may classify the driver as an independent contractor instead of an employee, meaning that the company will not accept responsibility for the driver’s actions.  Second, even if the rideshare company accepts responsibility, the company’s insurance may not provide coverage, as discussed below.  In that event, the injured party is left to rely on the driver’s insurance, which also may be inadequate and may even exclude coverage for rideshare-related accidents.

The independent contractor issue has been litigated in numerous states with different outcomes.  Uber currently is facing two class action lawsuits in California related to this issue: Ghazi v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. CGC-15-545532 (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco) and O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. CV-13-3826 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).[1]

Even if rideshare companies accept responsibility for a driver’s conduct, the companies typically have provided only limited insurance for their drivers.  Specifically, rideshare companies typically have not provided coverage in the following two periods: (1) when the rideshare app is turned off, or (2) when the app is turned on but no passenger is in the vehicle.

But, a horrific accident involving an Uber vehicle helped to start changing this dynamic.  Uber was sued in 2014 in California after a driver struck and killed a child during period (2) above, when he had his app turned on but had not yet picked up a passenger.  The case is captioned Liu v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. CGC-14-536979 (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco).

California and other states recently have started requiring rideshare companies to maintain some coverage for their drivers in period (2), but that coverage is limited.  The companies typically provide contingent liability coverage with $50,000 per person/$100,000 per accident bodily injury coverage, but this insurance typically pays only for losses not covered by the driver’s personal policy.

And, even when rideshare company coverage is in place, insurers have relied on certain insurance policy exclusions in an effort to avoid paying claims.  One insurer is currently making such arguments in the coverage dispute with Uber over the Liu settlement See Evanston Insurance Co. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. C15-03988 WHA (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).

If a rideshare company’s commercial insurance is inadequate to fully compensate an injured party, that person is left to rely on a driver’s personal insurance.  But the driver’s insurance may be of no help because personal auto policies often contain an exclusion (the “livery exclusion”) for accidents occurring during commercial use of the vehicle, such as when a driver is transporting a passenger for hire.

Recently, there has been some effort in the insurance industry to close the insurance gaps discussed above, particularly during period (2), when a rideshare driver is using a mobile app but has not yet picked up a passenger.

In March 2015, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners adopted a white paper on insurance coverage for rideshare companies titled “Transportation Network Company Insurance Principles for Legislators and Regulators.”  The paper recommends that rideshare companies provide full coverage for period (2) or that drivers purchase individual commercial coverage during that period.

Similar to California, legislatures in Colorado, Illinois, and Virginia have passed laws requiring rideshare companies to offer full insurance during period (2).

In addition, some insurance companies are offering products to rideshare drivers to protect them in the event that rideshare companies’ commercial insurance does not pay.  For example, Geico (in Maryland and Virginia) and Progressive (in Pennsylvania) are offering individual commercial insurance to rideshare drivers that has lower rates than most commercial insurance.  USAA (in Colorado and Texas) offers a commercial insurance policy to rideshare drivers for an extra $6 to $8 per month.  Erie Insurance (in Illinois and Indiana) has removed an exclusion from personal auto policies purchased with a “business use” designation such that rideshare drivers now may be covered.

Overall, many options are emerging to provide additional insurance coverage on rideshare vehicles for the benefit of passengers and other third parties at all stages of the transportation process – from the time a rideshare driver turns on the app through the transport of a passenger.  Passengers, drivers, and affected third parties should continue to monitor these developments to make sure they are adequately protected.

Article By Natalie A. Baughman of Gilbert LLP
© 2016 Gilbert LLP

[1] One consequence of the driver being classified as an independent contractor is that rideshare companies do not have to provide worker’s compensation insurance for a driver’s on-the-job injuries.  The Ghazi case addresses whether Uber drivers actually are employees and thus Uber must provide worker’s compensation insurance.

Drones: Insurance Coverage Issues

With new regulations for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs, or drones) and a seemingly never-ending expansion of use cases and attendant sources of liability, drone operators and those concerned about damage caused by drones need to carefully consider the role of insurance. As in other contexts, insurance—if carefully tailored and negotiated—can be an effective risk-transfer tool.

Insurance that potentially covers loss related to drones is in flux, but generally falls into three categories:

1. Specialty Aircraft Insurance: While specialty products related aircraft, including for unmanned aircrafts, have been on the market for a number of years, use of those products historically has been limited to individuals, companies and enterprises whose core business relates to aircrafts. This type of insurance is not always tailored to drones with cameras, which raise additional potential liability (e.g., invasion of privacy).

2. Commercial General Liability (CGL) Insurance: Most other insureds rely on a commercial general liability (CGL) policy to provide protection. But earlier this year, the Insurance Services Office (ISO), which proposes and makes changes to the standard CGL form used by most insurers, revised the provisions that might apply to drone-related liability. Some of these revisions purport to exclude coverage for liability related to drones that, for example, might arise from subcontractors’ or independent contractors’ operations for which the insured might be vicariously liable. Other changes to the CGL policy form require detailed attention to specific drones and projects or to whether violations of privacy might occur. The ISO changes warrant careful consideration, both when considering the purchase of insurance, as well as during contract negotiations where risk transfer is a significant issue.

3. Homeowners’ Insurance: Finally, for non-commercial insureds hoping to rely on their homeowners’ insurance policies, many insurers are seeking to include exclusions for drone-related liability in their new policies. Spend the time to learn whether or not your policy provides adequate coverage.

Purchasing insurance for drone-related liability is only the first step. Claims related to damage caused by drones are on the rise and will only continue to rise in the future. When faced with insurance claims, expect insurers to examine closely whether the insured complied with all applicable regulations, industry standards with respect to training, policies or procedures outlined in the application for insurance, and others.

In short, insurance can be an effective risk-transfer tool for commercial drone operators or those concerned about drone-related liability. The recent changes in policy terms and a rapidly-changing marketplace for insurance require diligence and specialized knowledge of how the offered insurance policy fits the insured’s potential liability.

Article By Eric G. Barber & Steven L. Ritt of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

Insurers See Worldwide Drop in Customer Satisfaction

Risk Management Magazine / Risk Managment Montitor a publication of RIMS

Non-life insurers in most of the world saw improved underwriting ratios last year, thanks to a significant drop in claims expenses and rising premium volume aided by growth in emerging markets. According to Capgemini’s 2015 World Insurance Report, however, insurers were not nearly as successful with their customers.

Globally, positive customer experiences decreased significantly in 2014, indicating that steps taken by insurers are not matching rising customer expectations, the consultancy reported. The fall was pervasive worldwide, but North America witnessed the largest drop of 8.3 percentage points, followed by Latin America with 5.3 points.

According to the report, “The agent channel delivered positive experience levels that were almost double those of digital channels, suggesting that digital channels are dragging down global customer experience levels. Customer expectations of digital channels such as mobile and social media are rising rapidly along with their usage and importance. However, more than 40% of customers cited positive experiences through the agency channel, while less than 30% of customers had positive experiences through digital channels such as mobile and social media.”

Claims servicing is also problematic in terms of customer experience, seeing the lowest percentage of happy customers.

Among all customers, Gen Y currently presents the biggest decrease in satisfaction. The drop in positive experience levels was much steeper for this age group than any other, and this trend is seen across all regions, especially in the developed markets. In North America, the drop in experience levels for Gen Y customers was approximately 10 percentage points steeper than other age segments, while in developed Asia-Pacific the difference was around five percentage points, Capgemini reported.

Check out more of the study’s key findings in the infographic below:

Insurers See Worldwide Drop in Customer Satisfaction

ARTICLE BY

Hilary Tuttle
Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS)

Congress Begins With Renewed Efforts to Repeal Insurer’s Antitrust Exemption

Dickinson Wright Logo

Early into the 114th Congress, multiple bills have already been introduced that would repeal the insurance industry’s limited antitrust exemption granted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act (15 USC 1011 et seq.).

On January 6, Representative John Conyers (D-Mich.) introduced the “Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2015,” (H.R. 99). The legislation would amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which currently provides the insurance industry with an exemption from the federal antitrust laws for conduct that is “the business of insurance,” is “subject to state regulation,” and does not constitute “an act of boycott, coercion or intimidation,” (15 USC 1013), by removing the exemption for health insurers and medical malpractice insurers. Notably, the bill would not eliminate the exemption with respect to other lines of insurance, and is similar to McCarran repeal bills that Representative Conyers has introduced in prior sessions of Congress. Representative Conyers has previously stated that his bill would “end the mistake Congress made in 1945 when it added an antitrust exemption for insurance companies.”

Subsequently, on January 22, Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who was a practicing dentist for many years, introduced similar McCarran repeal legislation, entitled the “Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2015” (H.R. 494). Representative Gosar’s bill would only eliminate the exemption as to health insurers. In introducing his legislation, Representative Gosar stated that “Since the passage of Obamacare, the health insurance market has expanded into one of the least transparent and most anti-competitive industries in the United States,” and that there is “no reason in law, policy or logic for the insurance industry to have a special exemption” from the antitrust laws.

Both H.R. 99 and H.R. 494 have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for further action. Whether these bills will gain traction this Congress remains to be seen, but the fact that the bill has supporters on both sides of the aisle certainly increases the chances that the legislation will, at a minimum, be considered by the House Judiciary Committee (which failed to take up similar legislation in the 113th Congress).

ARTICLE BY

James M. Burns
OF
Dickinson Wright PLLC

Employment Related Lawsuits Are on the Rise. Are You Covered?

Gilbert LLP Law FirmOn September 25, 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed the first two suits in its history challenging transgender discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  As discrimination litigation evolves, it is important to know whether your insurance coverage is evolving with it.

Coverage for employee-related lawsuits has always been important, but the increase in suits brought by the EEOC over the last several years (and the last several decades) has made employment practices liability (“EPL”) insurance of particular importance to protecting your company.  Last year, the EEOC recovered a record-setting $372.1 million.

Now, the scope of EEOC suits is increasing as a result of the EEOC’s ongoing efforts to implement its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”), adopted in December of 2012.  As part of its SEP, the EEOC makes “coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions, as they may apply” a “top commission enforcement priority.”

Comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) policies, are a type of commercial third-party liability insurance.  Most businesses in the United States purchase CGL policies in order to protect against the risk of suits by third parties.  If a patron sues you for a slip and fall in your mom-and-pop shop, your CGL policy probably covers the suit.  Likewise, if you distribute across the entire country a product that allegedly causes bodily harm to thousands of people, your CGL policy probably covers the suits.

As broad as CGL coverage is, however, it is only one piece to a balanced insurance portfolio.  CGL policies typically exclude coverage for suits brought by employees of the company.  EPL polices step in to fill one part of the gap in coverage.  Other parts of the gap are filled by workman’s compensation policies and directors and officers liability policies.

A typical EPL policy may list a number of categories of protected classes covered by insurance, and then add coverage for “other protected classes.”  A policy may also protect against claims for “Discrimination,” and define that discrimination broadly to mean “any actual or alleged violation of any employment discrimination law.”  However, some polices offer more limited coverage.  For example, some carriers may restrict coverage to only sexual harassment.

Just as you protect your company from fire by installing sprinklers in your warehouses and doing regular safety inspections, it is imperative that you keep your employment practices up to date.  Educate your employees on proper workplace behavior, and try to think about ways to get ahead of the curve to minimize your liability for alleged workplace discriminations.

Just as discrimination litigation is evolving, other areas of litigation continue to evolve and create new risks for your company.  In addition, coverage law continues to evolve across the United States, on a state-by-state basis.  As coverage law evolves, it has a direct effect on the value of your insurance portfolio.

ARTICLE BY

João Santa-Rita
OF
Gilbert LLP

Best of the Worst in Insurance Fraud

Risk-Management-Monitor-Com

The second most costly white collar crime in America behind tax evasion, insurance fraud costs an estimated $80 billion annually. Questionable claims rose 26.7% across the United States between 2010 and 2012, according to Mercury Insurance Company, whose Special Investigation Unit (SIU) of 50 investigators nationwide examines questionable claims. The team completed 1,476 investigations in California alone, exposing more than $24 million in attempted fraud, the company said.

insurance fraud

“It’s amazing the things people will do to try and cheat the system, but they don’t know we’ve seen it all,” said Dan Bales, national director of special investigations for Mercury, which established one of the country’s first SIU’s in 1978. “Our SIU goal is to stay several steps ahead of these criminals and continue to uncover fraud, which can contribute to as much as 30% of customers’ premiums.”

Below are Mercury’s Top 3 “Best of the Worst Claims,” in 2013, highlighting some of the methods used to try and beat the system.

Claim #3: Bicycle Down

The claimant alleged he was struck as his bicycle passed behind a Mercury-insured vehicle that was backing up in a parking lot. He called the police, filed a report claiming injury and property damage, and was then transported by ambulance to a medical center to treat his alleged injuries.

The real story was quite different, however, as this criminal didn’t know the entire incident was caught on video. The video clearly showed the claimant intentionally slapping the back of the insured vehicle with his hand and then guiding his bicycle to the ground to make it look like he’d been struck by the car.

The claimant retained an attorney to pursue an injury claim, which was denied by Mercury following the police report that included the security camera video taken at the scene. The claimant was ultimately arrested, convicted and sentenced to three months in jail with three years’ probation, and also had to pay a fine, restitution and his medical bills.

Claim #2: Wrong Way Driver

The insured stopped at an intersection in front of a repair van. Suddenly, the two vehicles collided in what appeared to be a rear-end collision, which necessitated police being called to gather statements.

The insured driver and passenger claimed the van driver had rear-ended the insured’s vehicle and both were allegedly injured. However, the van driver’s adamant contention that he hadn’t caused the accident led the investigating officer to seek surveillance video, which he found at a nearby gas station. Sure enough, the footage revealed that instead of proceeding through the intersection as expected, the insured driver threw her vehicle into reverse, slamming into the front of the van.

The insured driver and her passenger were subsequently charged with insurance fraud and conspiracy, and the driver was also charged with assault with a deadly weapon … her car. And yes, the claim was denied.

Claim #1: A Not-So-Merry Christmas

Looking to make some quick Christmas cash, the insured and two cohorts staged an accident and filed medical payment claims through Mercury, which were identified as questionable and assigned to the SIU for investigation.

A detailed claims history was compiled for the three individuals, who were then interviewed by SIU investigators. What the investigators found was that each claimant’s story was different, so they began to look deeper. That’s when they uncovered some very compelling evidence that suggested this accident was staged.

The SIU team discovered the insured’s prior claim history showed a loss at the same location with the same facts provided. A confession quickly followed about his latest claim, as well as a description of all the fraud he’d committed on each of his previous claims. All three claimants were convicted and given probation, community service and ordered to pay more than $26,000 in restitution to Mercury Insurance.

Suspicious activity can be reported to the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

The Affordable Care Act—Countdown to Compliance for Employers, Week 29: Wellness Programs, Smoking Cessation and e-Cigarettes

MintzLogo2010_Black

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) generally prohibits discrimination in eligibility, benefits, or premiums based on a health factor, except in the case of certain wellness programs. Final regulations issued in 2006 established rules implementing these nondiscrimination and wellness provisions. TheAffordable Care Act largely incorporates the provisions of the 2006 final regulations (with a few clarifications), and it changes the maximum reward that can be provided under a “health-contingent” wellness program from 20 percent to 30 percent. But in the case of smoking cessation programs, the maximum reward is increased to 50 percent. Comprehensive final regulations issued in June 2013 fleshed out the particulars of the new wellness program regime.

Health-contingent wellness programs require an individual to satisfy a standard related to a health factor to obtain a reward. The final rules divide health-contingent wellness programs into the following two categories: activity-only programs, and outcome-based programs. As applied to smoking cessation, an “activity-only program” might require an individual to attend a class to obtain the reward. In contrast, an outcome-based program would require an individual to quit smoking, or least take steps to do so under complex rules governing alternative standards.

Nowhere do the final regulations address the role of electronic cigarettes (or “e-cigarettes”). Simply put, the issue is whether an e-cigarette user is a smoker or a nonsmoker? (According to Wikipedia, an electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), “is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates tobacco smoking by producing a vapor that resembles smoke. It generally uses a heating element known as an atomizer that vaporizes a liquid solution.”) But questions relating to e-cigarettes are starting to surface in the context of wellness program administration. Specifically:

  1. Is an individual who uses e-cigarettes a “smoker” for purposes of qualifying, or not qualifying, for a wellness program reward, and
  2. May a wellness program offer e-cigarettes as an alternative standard, i.e., one that if satisfied would qualify an individual as a non-smoker?

Is an individual who uses e-cigarettes a “smoker” for purposes of qualifying, or not qualifying, for a wellness program reward?

While the final rules don’t mention or otherwise refer to e-cigarettes, they do provide ample clues to support the proposition that smoking cessation involves tobacco use. Here is the opening paragraph of the preamble:

SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations, consistent with the Affordable Care Act, regarding nondiscriminatory wellness programs in group health coverage. Specifically, these final regulations increase the maximum permissible reward under a health-contingent wellness program offered in connection with a group health plan (and any related health insurance coverage) from 20 percent to 30 percent of the cost of coverage. The final regulations further increase the maximum permissible reward to 50 percent for wellness programs designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use. (Emphasis added.)

There is also a discussion in the preamble about alternative standards (79 Fed Reg. p. 33,164 (middle column)), which reads in relevant part:

The Departments continue to maintain that, with respect to tobacco cessation, ‘‘overcoming an addiction sometimes requires a cycle of failure and renewed effort,’’ as stated in the preamble to the proposed regulations. For plans with an initial outcome-based standard that an individual not use tobacco, a reasonable alternative standard in Year 1 may be to try an educational seminar. (Footnotes omitted.)

In addition, the final regulations’ Economic Impact and Paperwork Burden section is replete with references to tobacco use, as are the examples (see Treas. Reg. § 54.9802-1(f)(4)(vi), examples 6 and 7).

On the other hand, the definition of what constitutes a participatory wellness program refers simply to “smoking cessation” (Treas. Reg. § 54.9802-1(f)(1)(ii)(D)), and the definition of an outcome-based wellness program (Treas. Reg. § 54.9802-1(f)(1)(v)) simply refers to “not smoking.” In neither case is there any reference to tobacco.

The Affordable Care Act’s rules governing wellness programs are included in the Act’s insurance market reforms, which take the form of amendments to the Public Health Service Act that are also incorporated by reference in the Internal Revenue Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). By virtue of being included in ERISA, participants have a private right of action to enforce these rules. So an employer that wanted to treat the use of e-cigarettes as smoking in order to deny access to a wellness reward would likely confront arguments similar to those set out above in the event of a challenge.

May a wellness program offer e-cigarettes as an alternative standard, i.e., one that if satisfied would qualify an individual as a non-smoker?

This is perhaps a more difficult question. May an employer designate e-cigarette use as an alternative standard? Anecdotal evidence suggests that employers are not doing so, at least not yet. But could they do so? And would it make a difference whether the e-cigarette in question used a nicotine-based solution as opposed to some other chemical? (According to Wikipedia, “solutions usually contain a mixture of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings, while others release a flavored vapor without nicotine.”) The answer in each case is, it’s too soon to tell.

The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain, with evidence going both ways. Better evidence would certainly give the regulators the basis for further rulemaking in the area. In the meantime, the final regulations’ multiple references to tobacco, and by implication, nicotine, seem to furnish as good a starting point as any. This approach would require a wellness plan sponsor to distinguish between nicotine-based and non-nicotine-based solutions, which may prove administratively burdensome.

The larger question, which may take some time to settle, is whether e-cigarettes advance or retard the cause of wellness. Absent reliable clinical evidence, regulators and wellness plan sponsors have little to guide their efforts or inform their decisions as to how to integrate e-cigarettes into responsible wellness plan designs. Complicating matters, the market for e-cigarettes is potentially large, which means that reliable (read: unbiased) clinical evidence may be hard to come by. For now, all plan sponsors can do is to answer the questions set out above in good faith and in accordance with their best understanding of the final regulations.

Article By:

Alden J. Bianchi
Of:
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

 

What Do You Get When You Cross March Madness With Insurance?

GIL_RGB

 

A chance to win one billion dollars.  Quicken Loans and Berkshire Hathaway recently announced that they are teaming up to award one billion dollars to be shared by persons who correctly predict the winners of every game in this year’s men’s college basketball tournament.  Quicken is running the competition and paying Berkshire Hathaway an undisclosed premium to insure the prize.

While this may be one of the largest promotions tied to a sporting event, it is just another example of a growing trend.

For example, during the 2013 Super Bowl, Beyonce’s halftime performance was just a precursor to a larger celebration for certain customers of Gardiners Furniture Company (“Gardiners”), a furniture company with locations in the Baltimore, Maryland area.

Baltimore Ravens return man Jacoby Jones took the second half kickoff one hundred and eight yards for a touchdown.  As part of a Super Bowl promotion, Gardiners promised to give free furniture to customers who purchased furniture between January 31, 2013 and 3 p.m. on Super Bowl Sunday if a player returned a kick for a touchdown at the start of the game or after half-time.  As a result of Jones’s dash, Gardiners gave away approximately $600,000 of free furniture.

Gardiners’ customers were thrilled and, according to Kasee Lehrl, the advertising and marketing manager at Gardiners, the company was “just as happy.”  Kelcie Pegher, Gardiners Furniture Refunds $600,000 in Furniture on Super Bowl Bet, Carroll County Times, Feb. 6, 2013.  That is because Gardiners reportedly paid $12,000 for an insurance policy in case the store had to follow through on its end of the promotion.  According to Gardiners co-owner Gary Mullaney, it was worth every penny for the publicity and the winning feeling it gave his customers.  Ron Dicker, Gardiners Furniture Store Loses $600,000 Super Bowl Bet on Baltimore Ravens Kickoff Return, The Huffington Post, Feb. 6, 2013.  No doubt, Quicken and Berkshire Hathaway are enjoying similar publicity linked to their March Madness tournament.

Promotions tied to sporting events or other events of chance are limited only by the imagination of marketing teams.  Some of the most common examples include:

  • Hole-in-one competitions;
  • Shoot the puck games;
  • Basketball shots;
  • Soccer or football kicks;
  • Sweepstakes; and
  • Scratch and win games

Contests such as these continue to increase in popularity and are becoming a staple of marketing departments.  The size of the awarded prizes also continues to grow, resulting in an increased demand for prize indemnity insurance.

Prize indemnity insurance is a category of contingency insurance that works by transferring the risk of somebody winning the prize from the promoter to an insurance company.  The insurance company calculates the cost of the insurance coverage based off of the probability of a winner.  In case you were wondering, the chances of somebody predicting all sixty-three games in the men’s college basketball tournament accurately is approximately 1 in 9.2 quintillion (eighteen zeroes).

Typically, insurance carriers charge policyholders a premium of approximately five to twenty percent of the value of the prize being offered.  However, the premium will vary based on the type of promotion and the statistical likelihood of the customers winning.  The three most significant factors in determining the premium level are:  (1) the difficulty of the promotion; (2) the number of attempts to win; and (3) the value of the prize.

Instead of keeping cash reserves to cover large prizes, the promoter pays a premium to the insurance company, which then reimburses the insured should a prize be given away.  As a result, in exchange for the premium payment, there is no risk on the insured that the prize will be awarded.

As marketing departments increasingly utilize promotions such as these as another arrow in their advertising quiver, it is important that risk managers work in concert with their marketing department to ensure that financial risks to the company are properly managed.  Increasingly, that includes purchasing prize indemnity insurance.

So remember, get your bracket in on time and GO BLUE!

Article by:

Jason S. Rubinstein

Of:

Gilbert LLP