The Florida Supreme Court recently made two separate rulings that have triggered a monumental reform of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Laws and Rates.

As some of you may be aware, the Florida Supreme Court recently made two separate rulings that have triggered a monumental reform of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Laws and rates. The recent rulings will reverse the 60% rate decrease we’ve experienced since 2003.

What does this mean for your company?

A proposed rate increase of 19.6% has been recommended to take effect October 1st, 2016 for all new and renewal policies. Furthermore, the ultimate rate increase will apply on a pro-rata basis to all policies in place on October 1st, 2016.

What can I expect as a result of this overhaul?

These recent changes will now encourage more litigation due to attorney fees no longer being capped on cases. There is also potential for prior claims still within the statute of limitation (2 years from accident, 1 year from last payment) to be re-opened due to the recent case law.

What can you do to alleviate the financial burden?

This is a great time to evaluate your current risk management and claims prevention protocols. Workers Compensation is the one insurance coverage where an ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure when it comes to controlling your premium. It will be important going forward to really work closely with your employees and making sure claims are managed properly. Getting injured workers back to work will be critical! This could help offset some of the cost increase in the event your claims experience is positive.

What are my options from an insurance standpoint?

Medical malpractice case settled for $6 million

MERCER – A judge on Wednesday approved a $6 million settlement in a medical malpractice case.

Leigh A. Isaacs initiated the action in response to the death of her husband, Harold D. Isaacs Jr. of New Wilmington, who died at age 41 on June 21, 2013.

A notice of intent to sue was filed June 19, 2015, in Mercer County Common Pleas Court against Dr. Joseph J. Wizorek, UPMC Horizon in Greenville and University of Pittsburgh Physicians, but the parties reached the settlement in May without a formal complaint being filed.

According to a petition filed by Isaac’s attorney, Neil R. Rosen of Pittsburgh, Harold Isaacs was involved in a minor traffic crash. A CT scan of his chest revealed a “small, asymptomatic mass” in connecting tissue. Harold Isaacs was referred to Wizorek, who recommended surgery to remove the mass.

Surgery was performed June 20, 2013, but Isaacs died the next day of multi-system organ failure.

Rosen said he obtained an expert opinion that there “numerous deviations from the standard of care” in Harold Isaacs’ case, and initiated the wrongful death claim.

Of the settlement, $2.4 million will go to Leigh Isaacs and $1.2 million each will go to Harold Isaacs’ minor children. Rosen will receive $400,000.

Judge Christopher J. St. John approved the settlement. Read full article, click here.

Uptick in Lawyers’ Liability Claims; Business Transactions Top Claim: Study Shows

Law firms have seen an increase in the frequency of malpractice claims, which are becoming more costly to defend and could cause lasting reputational damage, according to a new study by insurance broker Ames & Gough. The study found that most legal malpractice insurers saw an increase in the frequency of new claims in 2015, including larger claims with costs in excess of $50 million.

In its sixth annual survey of lawyers’ professional liability claims, Ames & Gough examined the trend by polling nine lawyers’ professional liability insurance companies that on a combined basis provide insurance to more than 60 percent of the AM Law 100 firms.

Five of the insurers reported greater malpractice claim activity in 2015 compared to the prior year; four reported seeing a similar number of claims both years. Overall claim volume had been stable in 2013 and 2014, even as the number of larger claims continued to rise.

In the past two years, eight of the insurers surveyed participated in paying a claim of $50 million or more, including two that participated in a claim exceeding $100 million. Six of the nine insurers surveyed reported they had 21 or more claims with reserves of $500,000 or greater (combined indemnity and defense costs), the same number as in 2014.

Click here to read full article.

Vern Barclay attends ALFN event in Asheville

Vern Barclay has been at an ALFN event for the last few days in Asheville

About the ALFN

The ALFN is a national network of legal and residential mortgage banking professionals and leads the industry as a provider of strategic and timely education. The largest national organization of its kind, the ALFN offers members of the residential mortgage banking community high quality educational and training resources. ALFNs membership rosters include professionals from the following segments of the residential mortgage banking community: Legal, Residential Mortgage Bankers and Investors, Risk Evaluation, Investment Research, Consulting, Land and Title, Technology and Asset Protection.

Learn more about ALFN, click here.

A push to make cops buy liability insurance in Minneapolis

As an advocate for victims of police brutality and their families, Michelle Gross has alternately worked with and needled Minneapolis city officials. During 30 years of activism, Gross has pursued many, if not most, ways for residents to improve police accountability, from designing civilian oversight to compiling hard-to-get complaint data.

Then six years ago she got a different idea: professional liability insurance. Doctors and lawyers carry malpractice insurance. Why not require police officers to purchase coverage and make them, not just the city, pick up the tab in misconduct settlements?

Gross didn’t know it, but she was about to shake the dust off an old idea that had disappeared from practice more than 50 years ago. The idea upsets modern norms, divides policing experts and potentially recalibrates the balance of power between community, police and city government.

“I thought it was flipping brilliant,” Gross said.

At the time, a string of police misconduct suits and six-figure settlements under then-police chief Tim Dolan had grabbed local headlines. Gross saw a chance to attack a two-pronged problem: officer discipline and runaway payouts. “I’m a homeowner and taxpayer, and I don’t like that our city is budgeting for police misconduct,” she said.

Read more: Chicago reporter

NJ: No Vicarious Liability for Partner Where LLP Lacked Tail Coverage

The requirement for a law firm organized as a limited liability partnership to maintain malpractice insurance does not extend to the period when a firm is winding up operations and has ceased to provide legal services, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The plain language of Rule 1:21-1C ties the insurance mandate to the performance of professional services, and that term doesn't encompass the administrative duties related to a windup, the court ruled in Mortgage Grader v. Ward & Olivo. Affirming an Appellate Division order, the court said a motion judge erred by converting the Summit firm from an LLP to a general partnership for failing to carry malpractice insurance while winding up operations.

As a result of the ruling, Mortgage Grader Inc., which hired the firm's John Olivo in 2009 to address claims of patent infringement, has no vicarious liability claim against the firm's other partner, John Ward, for Olivo's alleged malpractice, the court said. Mortgage Grader, based in Laguna Niguel, California, entered into settlement agreements related to the infringement claims that gave rise to allegations of malpractice. In June 2011, Ward & Olivo dissolved and entered into a windup period while collecting outstanding legal fees and paying taxes.

The firm's claims-made policy ran through Aug. 8, 2011. In October 2012, Mortgage Grader filed a malpractice suit against the firm, Olivo and Ward, alleging malpractice by Olivo in relation to the settlements. Mortgage Grader served an affidavit of merit on Ward & Olivo and Olivo but not on Ward.

Ward moved to dismiss, arguing that he could not be held vicariously liable, and that he had not been served with an affidavit of merit. The judge hearing the motion concluded that the lapse of the firm's malpractice insurance policy relegated the firm to a general partnership and, therefore, Ward could be found vicariously liable. The Appellate Division reversed in 2014, and Mortgage Grader appealed. At the Supreme Court, Mortgage Grader asserted that Olivo's termination of the attorney-client relationship in May 2012, nine months after his firm's malpractice insurance lapsed, dictated that the firm should have purchased so-called tail coverage for the windup period. Ward, for his part, argued that a mandate to purchase tail coverage would require coverage perpetually into the future, since the six-year statute of limitations would not apply to representation of a minor or the drafting of a will.

Under R. 1:21-1C, adopted in 1996, a law firm organized as an LLP must carry at least $100,000 in insurance for each attorney employed, Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina wrote for the court. The rule was intended to protect partners from lawsuits premised on vicarious liability, but common sense and public policy dictate that partners should not be allowed to seek shelter behind the liability shield of an LLP when they have not maintained malpractice insurance, Fernandez-Vina wrote.

Full article: www.njlawjournal.com

5 essentials of a Cyber liability insurance policy

Data breaches pose one of the most pressing and potentially devastating risks to businesses across the globe.

The significant financial and reputational damage resulting from a hack can impact the entire business on an unprecedented scale. The problem is increasingly widespread in our hyper-connected world, and according to the Identity Theft Resource Center, 781 data breaches were recorded in the United States in 2015, the second most active year in the past decade.

These threats continue to grow at an exponential rate, and cybercriminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their methods of attack. Now more than ever, it’s imperative that businesses both large and small go on the offensive to safeguard the sensitive information of their employees, partners and customers by taking the proper preventive measures and implementing a comprehensive Cyber liability insurance policy.

The term “Cyber liability” insurance is somewhat of a misnomer because people tend to equate the word “cyber” with a technological hacking event. However, a more appropriate name for the policy would be “privacy liability,” because the scope of coverage includes the loss of private information through almost any process of theft, not just virtual.

While the widely known tactics of hacking, skimming and phishing were the leading causes of data breaches in 2015, nearly 50% of total data breaches last year were the result of employee error, improper disposal of documents, lost equipment and other non-technological failures.

The costs of not securing adequate protection could be devastating to a business. In fact, the Ponemon Institute’s 2015 Cost of Data Breach Study concluded that data breaches on average leave companies on the hook for $3.79 million in damages per incident, but depending on the cause of the data breach, this number can be even higher.

Forensics and legal
Public relations
Notification costs and credit monitoring
Business interruption coverage
Cyber extortion coverage

Read More: www.propertycasualty360.com