<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Professional Liability Tidbits &#187; EPL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pltidbits.com/category/epl/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pltidbits.com</link>
	<description>For the Insurance Professional in the Know</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:59:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Perils of Self-Management of Claims</title>
		<link>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/06/the-perils-of-self-management-of-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/06/the-perils-of-self-management-of-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:23:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Christian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agents E&O]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[declined claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deductible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[denied]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SIR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pltidbits.com/?p=234</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some insureds like to handle their own claims -- until they blow up.  If the carrier is aware of this self-management and agrees to it, no problem.  If not, the insured is risking an uncovered loss.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The  6/4/09 Knowledge Knugget is below.   A related posting on LinkedIn has generated a lot of commentary, as has another posting from a colleague questioning insureds&#8217; propensity to report late.  I have not yet begun to delve in to the possible Agents&#8217; E&amp;O exposures of an agent knowing his insured is doing this and not bringing these problems to their attention.</p>
<table style="width: 600px;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="100%"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="15"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<table id="content_LETTER.BLOCK4" style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px; height: 974px;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width="484">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #0000ff;">I was  recently reviewing an EPL account where there were four claims but none reported  to the carrier.  Upon discussion with the agent, I discovered that the insured  turned claims and allegations over to their own attorney, who resolved matters.   None of these incidents were turned in to the carrier, on the assumption that if  something spun out of control that would be the time to get the carrier  involved.</p>
<p>I asked the agent if the current policy had a provision for the  insured to manage its own claims within the retention, and he responded that it  did not.</p>
<p>What is this insured doing to itself?</p>
<p>Clearly, there are  three issues:</p>
<p>1.  Inaccurate claims reporting and possible voiding of  future coverage.  If loss runs are pulled, they show a clean slate.  There isn&#8217;t  one.  Luckily for all underwriters involved, this insured discloses its claims,  but if it were not so forthcoming, it could easily mislead underwriters, and  loss runs would support the deception.  The only time the omission would come to  light is if investigation of a later claim turned up evidence of the prior  ones.  There is a clear loss and frequency pattern, of which knowledge the  underwriters would be deprived.  If this lack of reporting were to come to  surface later, a policy could be rescinded for material misrepresentation.</p>
<p>As far as the insured is concerned, it&#8217;s no harm, no foul because the  claims have been resolved within the deductible.  Don&#8217;t get me started. Again,  in my specific case,the insured did disclose the claims via narrative, but I  quail to think how many insureds don&#8217;t, when they assume that a claim settled  within the deductible is no one&#8217;s concern but their own.</p>
<p>2.  Risking declination of a claim when submitted.  More importantly, the  insured is taking its life into its hands if any given claim cannot be favorably  resolved within the deductible. When the claim blows up, there is a late report  situation (may be critical, depending on policy reporting provisions), and if  the carrier&#8217;s position and ability to defend the insured have been prejudiced,  such prejudice may give the carrier a reason to decline coverage.</p>
<p>3.  Paying a deductible twice.  Monies paid to its own attorney without consent  of the carrier may not serve to meet the deductible in the first place.  Many  policies have a provision that indicates they will not consider covered any  expenditures that take place without the carrier&#8217;s consent.  Clearly, paying  ones own counsel to manage a claim that is not submitted to the carrier would  constitute an expenditure taking place without the carrier&#8217;s consent.</p>
<p>Why take these chances?  Isn&#8217;t it better to arrange with the carrier ahead of  time if one wishes to manage ones own claims within a retention?  Many carriers  are agreeable to this arrangement, and if a current carrier is not &#8212; find  another one!  Or get the desired counsel agreed by the carrier, and run the  claims through the system so that expenditures within the deductible count  against it, and the insured does not have to pay it twice (once to its own  attorney, then again to reimburse the carrier for the next round of legal  services).
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/06/the-perils-of-self-management-of-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Self-Reliance is not a good thing&#8230;.</title>
		<link>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/06/when-self-reliance-is-not-a-good-thing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/06/when-self-reliance-is-not-a-good-thing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Christian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Knowledge Knuggets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reporting claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncovered claims]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pltidbits.com/?p=231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When an insured does not report claims, they are courting disaster.  Subscribe to Knowledge Knuggets to find out why.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although self-reliance is often touted as a critical component of maturity and success, there&#8217;s one time it&#8217;s definitely out of vogue &#8212; when an insured does not report claims to their carrier.</p>
<p>This Thursday&#8217;s Knowledge Knugget is an examination of a current situation with one of my prospective insureds and their agent.  The insured likes to have their attorney handle their EPL claims, and they don&#8217;t turn them in to the carrier.  Subscribe to Knowledge Knuggets and get the inside scoop on this recipe for disaster!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/06/when-self-reliance-is-not-a-good-thing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is your Insured Driving a State-of-the-Art EPL Policy?</title>
		<link>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/05/is-your-insured-driving-a-state-of-the-art-epl-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/05/is-your-insured-driving-a-state-of-the-art-epl-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 19:51:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Christian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of express contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment practices liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[good coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pltidbits.com/?p=224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[EPL policy coverage quality runs the gamut.  Use this tool to evaluate your insureds' coverage.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been seeing a lot of insureds look twice at EPL coverage provided by their PEO.   One of the reasons is pure quality of coverage.  I was reviewing a PEO program for one of my agents today and was struck by how &#8220;retro&#8221; the coverage appears to be, at least from the initial information I received.</p>
<p>Please click <a title="State of the Art EPL Policy" href="http://pltidbits.com/whitepapers//state_of_the_art_epl_policy.pdf" target="_self"><span style="color: #ff6600;">here</span></a> to access a compilation of two recent Knowledge Knuggets that reviews the &#8220;must-haves&#8221; for the most up to date EPL coverage available.  This document is also available on the White Papers page.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/05/is-your-insured-driving-a-state-of-the-art-epl-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3 Looks at EPL (Employment Practices Liability)</title>
		<link>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/03/3-looks-at-epl-employment-practices-liability/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/03/3-looks-at-epl-employment-practices-liability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Christian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claim scenarios]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coverage differences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deductible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense in addition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense outside the limits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense sublimit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment practices liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[franchisor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hospitality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal worker investigation sublimit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional liability wholesale broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retaliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual harassment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subtleties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technical knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tort coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vicarious insured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage and hour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful termination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pltidbits.com/?p=178</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[EPL has become a common enough coverage that agents are beginning to perceive it as "standardized".  It is anything but!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently quoted an EPL policy for an agent and was struck anew by the tremendous differences between the policies.  Although they all had the usual:  duty to defend, consent to settle with various softened hammer clauses, and the Big 4 coverages (wrongful termination, discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation), here are a few things that were different:</p>
<p>Policy 1:  Provided true defense outside the limits (no cap) and wage and hour defense sublimit.</p>
<p>Policy 2:  Provided capped defense in addition, wage and hour defense <strong>and damages</strong> sublimit, and tort coverage not restricted to enumerated offenses.</p>
<p>Policy 3:  Did not provide defense outside, but did provide wage and hour defense sublimit, illegal worker investigation sublimit, and the ability to add the franchisor as a vicarious insured.  (This was a hospitality risk.)</p>
<p>Within its own microcosm, the pricing and deductible were similarly broadly varied.</p>
<p>Seems like the more things are the same, the more they change!</p>
<p>When you&#8217;re offering EPL terms to your insureds, are you looking at how these various &#8220;minor&#8221; differences can impact their potential claim scenarios and ensuing coverage?  Are you explaining these subtleties to your insureds?  Granted, many will not have the patience or the technical depth to grasp some of these issues.  But in those cases especially, the agent should guide the insured, applying a detailed knowledge of the insured&#8217;s operations and exposures to the coverages available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/03/3-looks-at-epl-employment-practices-liability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
