While ridiculous sounding lawsuits are common in our litigious society, some stand out because they sound so preposterous they could have been the plot of a “Seinfeld” episode.
For example, in 2019 an infamous Long Island attorney nicknamed the “Vanilla Vigilante,” sued Whole Foods for $5 million, claiming the store’s vanilla soy milk is flavored with ingredients in addition to vanilla. The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) highlights this case and others as part of Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week (October 5-9).
Food disappointments appear to be a common theme among these suits:
A December 2019 complaint filed in federal court alleged a Panera blueberry bagel purchased in Manhattan didn’t contain blueberries but “dyed lumps.” The complaint argues that the bagel’s advertising breached the New York Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices law, among others.
A May 2020 lawsuit contends that Haagen-Dasz milk chocolate coated ice cream bars should be labeled as milk chocolate and vegetable oil coated chocolate bars. The company says vegetable oil is used as an ingredient to help overcome the difficulties of applying a coating of chocolate to ice cream; the oil is not otherwise included in milk chocolate.
A June 2020 lawsuit against a snack food manufacturer alleges the “potato skin snacks” do not contain potato skins but potato starch and potato flakes.
Such cases are fun to laugh about, but increasing willingness of plaintiffs to bring suits of all kinds – and of juries to pay out large settlements, known as “nuclear verdicts” – feeds the phenomenon of social inflation, which drives up claims costs for insurers and premiums for policyholders.
ATRA warns that a wave of such lawsuits is expected against businesses as they reopen during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Commercial insurance loss estimates related to the COVID-19 pandemic vary widely, with Lloyd’s estimating global claims as high as $107 billion in 2020 and analysts from investment bank Berenberg projecting total claims between $50 billion and $70 billion.
But a new Allianz paper says the unprecedented size of pandemic-related claims is only part of the story. The paper discusses the changes in loss patterns and causes spurred by the pandemic that “may be the prologue to more far-reaching and disruptive changes in years to come.”
Shifting exposures
The pandemic has reduced risk in some areas while heightening it in others. The paper points to “material reductions [in claims] in some lines of property and liability insurance, most notably in the aviation sector.”
Reliance on technology and the shift to homeworking for staff and remote monitoring of industrial facilities make companies more vulnerable to cyber-attacks. Reduced air travel and increased emphasis on hygiene standards could benefit the risk profile of many industries, while changes in production line processes to facilitate social distancing could increase error rates.
According to Allianz, the cost of business interruption not related to COVID-19 fell in many cases as many manufacturers, their customers, and their suppliers either shut down or scaled back operations. On the other hand, COVID-19 containment measures have led to longer disruptions and more costly claims in some cases.
“For example, a fire at a chemical plant in South Korea forced the closure of the facility,” Allianz reports. “Restricted access due to the coronavirus lockdown prolonged the reinstatement period, increasing the overall cost of the standstill.”
The hibernation of some industries, such as aviation, doesn’t mean all loss exposures have equally disappeared, Allianz says. They’ve just changed, creating new risk accumulations: “For example, large parts of the worldwide fleet are grounded in airports, many of which might be exposed to hurricanes, tornados, or hailstorms. The risk of shunting or ground incidents, when large aircraft fleets are parked temporarily, also increases and can result in costly claims.”
Business resumption brings its own risks. Opening factories and restarting production lines are high-stress situations that can involve machinery breakdowns and fires.
Eye on supply chains
Allianz points to “the current rethinking and de-risking of global supply chains to achieve more operational resilience” as a trend to watch.
“Many companies are reviewing their supply chain strategies and evaluating options such as parallel supply chains with more redundancies or some reshoring from low-cost countries back to more developed markets,” Allianz says. “This will have an important impact for insurers, both in terms of generating demand for new protection solutions, as well as new claims scenarios.”
Potential also exists for claims to materialize from long-tail lines, such as directors and officers (D&O) or professional liability, as well as workers’ compensation, if any negligence or failures to adequately protect against the coronavirus outbreak have been perceived.
During the last week in September, Universal Health Services Inc., one of the largest hospital chains in the United States, began taking some ambulances out of service because of disruptions caused by a ransomware attack. Universal said no patients were harmed, but systems that support medical records, laboratories and pharmacies were taken offline at approximately 250 facilities.
This incident is part of a disturbing trend of healthcare institutions being targeted by ransomware attacks as the software used by hackers becomes more sophisticated and their attacks broader.
While cyber insurance claims impacted businesses of all types and sizes certain industries, including consumer businesses (retail, hospitality and food), healthcare and financial services were more frequent targets of cyberattacks in the first half of 2020, according to a recent report by Coalition, a provider of cyber insurance.
Overall, ransomware (41 percent), funds transfer loss (27 percent), and business email compromise incidents (19 percent) were the most frequent types of loss—accounting for 87 percent of reported incidents and 84 percent of claims paid in the first half of 2020.
“We’ve seen a sharp increase in ransom demands over the past quarter as threat actors have exploited COVID-19 and changes in company operating procedures. Although the frequency of ransomware claims has decreased by 18 percent from 2019 into the first half of 2020, we’ve observed a dramatic increase in the severity of these attacks,” said the Coalition report.
Since email is the single most targeted point of entry for a hacker, taking a few basic email security measures and implementing an anti-phishing solution would go a long way toward securing your business from criminals.
Coalition reports that, for each claim processed, cyber insurance played a critical role in helping the insured recover operationally. For example, a nonprofit organization providing child and family services grants to other nonprofits was duped into transferring $1.3 million to criminals. Coalition worked with law enforcement and the financial institutions involved to recover the stolen funds.
The U.K. High Court last week issued a ruling involving business-interruption claims against policies issued by eight insurers. Jason Schupp of the Centers for Better Insurance says the ruling is a “mixed bag” for U.K. insurers and policyholders and has little relevance for their U.S. counterparts.
In the U.K. case, Schupp writes, “the fundamental theme running through the insurers’ defense was that the policies only covered localized outbreaks, not global pandemics.”
“More to the point for U.S. property/casualty insurers,” says Michael Menapace, a professor of insurance law at Quinnipiac University School of Law and a Triple-I non-resident scholar, the U.K. case involved disease coverage – “an affirmative coverage not included in most U.S. commercial property policies.”
U.S. business interruption disputes so far have turned on two key policy features:
U.S. business-interruption coverage almost always requires property damage to trigger a payout.
Nearly all U.S. COVID-19-related court cases have involved policies that specifically exclude viruses.
“The U.K. court did not address either the question of property damage or the applicability of a virus exclusion,” Schupp writes.
As Menapace put it in a recent blog post about U.S. business-interruption cases, “Policy language controls whether COVID-19 interruptions are covered…. The threshold issue [for U.S. insurers] will be whether the insureds can prove their business losses are caused by ‘physical damage to property’.”
September is National Preparedness Month, and this years’ theme of “Disasters Don’t Wait. Make Your Plan Today” could not be more timely as many areas of the country experience record-breaking wildfires and storms.
The webinar showcased two small businesses’ stories of preparation and recovery from disaster. The webinar also covered small business loans that are available after a disaster, tools are available to help businesses prepare, and what you need to know about insurance coverage.
Alex Contreras, Director of the Office of Preparedness, Communication and Coordination in the SBA’s Office of Disaster Assistance (ODA), was the first speaker. The SBA offers low-interest disaster loans to businesses of all sizes, as well as to homeowners and renters. These loans are the primary source of federal assistance to help private property owners pay for disaster losses not covered by insurance. Borrowers are required to obtain and maintain appropriate insurance as a condition of most loans.
The SBA can also fund disaster mitigation efforts, such as installing fire-rated roofs, elevating structures to protect from flooding or relocating out of flood zones.
Janice Jucker, co-owner at Three Brothers Bakery in Houston, TX is the 2018 Phoenix Award Winner for Outstanding Small Business Disaster Recovery. After Hurricane Harvey, the bakery had five feet of water. Thanks to a business recovery plan, the business was fully operational after six weeks.
According to Jucker, part of an effective recovery plan is building a recovery team that includes a restoration company (find one now, don’t wait) an accountant, a contractor, an SBA loan officer and an insurance agent. Another important recovery team member is your local lawmaker – know who they are and make sure they know you, regardless of whether you agree with their politics. They can play a key part in making sure you get what you need to recover from a disaster.
Gail Moraton, business resiliency manager at IBHS, talked about the free business continuity planning tool called OFB-EZ (Open for Business E-Z) available from the IBHS. The first step to planning is to know your risk – both the likelihood of each type of disaster for your location and the amount of damage it could cause your business. Another step is having an up-to-date list of all your employees, vendors and other important contacts. A training exercise is also included with the planning tool.
Alison Bishop, internal operations manager at Spry Health Inc., talked about her company’s use of OFB-EZ. “It takes an overwhelming concept and makes it accessible and achievable,” she said.
Loretta Worters – vice president, media relations at Triple-I, went over different business insurance coverages that are available and pointed out that having the right coverage is a crucial part of disaster recovery, as well as an essential element of an overall business plan.
Like the other speakers, Ms. Worters said having a thorough inventory of all your business assets is of paramount importance. She listed different types of business policies that are available, including: property, business income interruption, extra expense, flood and civil authority. Separate coverage is also available for items that are frequently damaged in a storm, such as fences and awnings.
Click here to listen to a recording of the webinar, which offers many more useful tips for seeing your business through a disaster.
Perhaps the most emotionally compelling data point invoked by those who would compel insurers – through litigation and legislation – to pay business-interruption claims explicitly excluded from the policies they wrote is the property/casualty insurance industry’s nearly $800 billion policyholder surplus.
Many Americans hear “surplus” and think of a bit of cash they have stashed away for emergencies. And when you consider that nearly 40 percent of Americans surveyed by the Federal Reserve said they would either have to borrow or sell something to cover an unexpected $400 expense – or couldn’t pay it at all – that number may sound like overkill.
Not as much as you think
But policyholder surplus isn’t a “rainy day fund.” It’s an essential part of the industry’s ability to keep the promises it makes to policyholders. And although a number like $800 billion may raise eyebrows, when we look more closely at its components, the amount available to cover claims turns out to be considerably less.
Insurers are regulated on a state-by-state basis. Regulators require them to hold a certain amount in reserve to pay claims based on each insurer’s own risk profile. The aggregation of these reserves – required by every state for every insurer doing business in those states – accounts for about half the oft-cited industry surplus.
Call it $400 billion, for simplicity’s sake.
Each company’s regulator-required surplus can be thought of as that company’s “running on empty” mark – the point at which alarms go off and regulators start talking about requiring it to set even more aside to make sure no policyholders are left in a lurch.
By extension, $400 billion is where alarms begin going off for the entire industry.
It gets worse – or better, depending on your perspective.
In addition to state regulators’ requirements, the private rating agencies that gauge insurers’ financial strength and claims-paying ability don’t want to see reserves get anywhere near “Empty.” To get a strong rating from A.M. Best, Fitch, S&P, or Moody’s, insurers have to keep even more in reserve.
Why do private agency ratings matter? Consumers and businesses use them to determine what insurer they’ll buy coverage from. Also, stronger ratings can contribute to lower borrowing expenses, which can help keep insurers’ operating costs – and, in turn, policyholders’ premiums – at reasonable levels.
So, let’s say these additional reserves amount to about $200 billion for the industry. The nearly $800 billion surplus we started with now falls to about $200 billion.
To cover claims by all personal and commercial policyholders in a given year without prompting regulatory and rating agency actions that could drive up insurers’ costs and policyholders’ premiums.
Which brings us to today.
Losses ordinary and extraordinary
In the first quarter of 2020, the industry experienced its largest-ever quarterly decline in surplus, to $771.9 billion. This decline was due, in large part, to declines in stock value related to the economic recession sparked by the coronavirus pandemic.
Nevertheless, the industry remains financially strong, in large part because the bulk of insurers’ investments are in investment-grade corporate and governmental bonds. And it’s a good thing, too, because the conditions underlying that surplus decline preceded an extremely active hurricane season, atypical wildfire activity, and damages related to civil unrest approaching levels not seen since 1992 – involving losses that are not yet reflected in the surplus.
Insured losses from this year’s Hurricane Isaias are estimated in the vicinity of $5 billion. Hurricane Laura’s losses could, by some estimates, be as “small” as $4 billion or as large as $13 billion.
And the Atlantic hurricane season has not yet peaked.
The 2020 wildfire season is off to a horrific start. From January 1 to September 8, 2020, there were 41,051 wildfires, compared with 35,386 in the same period in 2019, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. About 4.7 million acres were burned in the 2020 period, compared with 4.2 million acres in 2019.
In California alone, wildfires have already burned 2.2 million acres in 2020 — more than any year on record. For context, insured losses for California’s November 2018 fires were estimated at more than $11 billion.
And the 2020 wildfire season still has a way to go.
All this is on top of routine claims for property and casualty losses.
Four billion here, 11 billion there – pretty soon we’re talking about “real money,” against available reserves that are far smaller than they at first appear.
No end in sight
Oh, yeah – and the pandemic-fueled recession isn’t expected to reverse any time soon. Economic growth worldwide remains depressed, with nearly every country experiencing declines in gross domestic product (GDP) – the total value of goods and services produced. GDP growth for the world’s 10 largest insurance markets is expected to decrease by 6.99 percent in 2020, compared to Triple-I’s previous estimate of a 4.9 percent decrease.
If insurers were required to pay business-interruption claims they never agreed to cover – and, therefore, didn’t reserve for – the cost to the industry related to small businesses alone could be as high as $383 billion per month.
This would bankrupt the industry, leaving many policyholders uninsured and insurance itself an untenable business proposition.
Fortunately, Americans seem to be beginning to get this. A recent poll by Future of American Insurance and Reinsurance (FAIR) found the majority of Americans believe the federal government should bear the financial responsibility for helping businesses stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic. Only 16 percent of respondents said insurers should bear the responsibility, and only 8 percent said they believe lawsuits against insurers are the best path for businesses to secure financial relief.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which regulates insurers in the United Kingdom, has indicated that it doesn’t believe COVID-19-related losses trigger most business insurance policies because such policies typically require a direct connection between financial loss and physical damage to the insured property.
Think fire, flood, wind, or earthquake damage.
The FCA is now litigating a test case involving policies of eight insurers that don’t require property damage to trigger coverage (Hear a three-minute explainer from the Centers for Better Insurance).
Is this case relevant to U.S. property/casualty insurers? It depends on whom you ask.
The FCA is looking at 17 policy wordings from the eight insurers and asking whether COVID-19 triggers a payout. Based on other policies the regulator has studied, the Financial Times reports, the court’s ruling are “expected to apply to nearly 50 insurers, who sold coverage to 370,000 customers.”
Senior executives from specialist insurance and reinsurance underwriter Hiscox Group warned that the FCA’s eventual findings could drive additional COVID-19 losses to its reinsurance book, Artemis reports.
Tom Baker – an expert in insurance law and policy at the University of Pennsylvania – called the U.K. case a “one-way ratchet” for U.S. insurers.
“If the carriers lose or end up having a lot of coverage, that’s going to be bad for them here” in the United States, Baker said. “I think if the carriers win, the insurance policies [in the U.K.] are really different. They tend to be named-peril, rather than all-risks policies. I think it will be easy to distinguish them.”
Jason Schupp, founder and managing member of Centers for Better Insurance, disagrees that an adverse ruling for U.K. insurers will have much of an effect on their U.S. counterparts.
“In Europe, [FCA] authorization to provide miscellaneous financial loss insurance allows an insurance company to write business interruption insurance that does not require evidence of property damage” to pay a claim, Schupp says. Even though the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union, Schupp says, “U.K. law itself recognizes the miscellaneous financial loss class of insurance.”
What does this mean for pandemic business interruption coverage in the United States? Not much, according to Schupp.
“The outcome of the U.K. litigation is unlikely to be relevant to the dozens – or perhaps hundreds – of business interruption lawsuits making their way through U.S. courts, where the property damage question is front and center,” Schupp says.
He goes on to say that proposals coming out of Europe or the U.K. for pandemic insurance going forward – such as a Lloyd’s framework – contemplate non-property-damage business interruption insurance solutions…. These proposals do not appear compatible with the current U.S. insurance regulatory system.”
A ruling by the FCA is expected in mid-September. Last week, the regulatory body said that, while the case doesn’t address how any resulting claims payments would be calculated, “We may intervene and take further actions where firms do not appear to be meeting our expectations and treating their customers fairly.”
As I’ve written previously, the question of whether business interruption provisions in commercial property insurance apply to COVID-19-related losses has become a major topic of debate during this pandemic. Suits have been filed seeking to establish that policyholders are entitled to coverage for such losses – even when losses associated with infectious disease are specifically excluded in the policy language.
This debate has been muddied in some circles by people confusing business interruption coverage with event cancellation insurance.
Citing the fact that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had its claim paid when it cancelled its annual men’s basketball tournament, as did the All England Lawn Tennis Association when it canceled its Wimbledon event, some wonder why many other businesses’ claims are being rejected.
While superficially similar, these claims couldn’t be more different from the business interruption cases currently being litigated.
Business Interruption: Physical Damage Required
Property insurance covers physical loss or damage to an insured’s property. The business interruption provisions of commercial property policies typically require a direct relationship between a physical loss or damage and the resulting lost income. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) form for commercial property coverage – the basis of many policies – specifies that any covered loss due to “necessary suspension” of operations must be caused by “direct physical loss of or damage to property at premises which are described in the Declarations.”
This is a critical point, as most business losses related to COVID-19 are due to employees and customers remaining absent, supply chain disruptions, and other factors – not to physical damage.
“A property policy may, for example, pay to repair the damage caused by a fire and may cover the loss of business during the reconstruction period,” writes Michael Menapace, a professor of insurance law at Quinnipiac University School of Law and a Triple-I Non-Resident Scholar. “But here’s the rub. Are the business interruptions related to COVID-19 caused by physical damage to property?”
Insurers say no, arguing that “damage to property” requires structural alteration like one would find when, say, a fire destroys the interior of a building or wind damages windows. The virus leaves no visible imprint. Even if remediation is needed – like cleaning mold from metal surfaces – insurers cite cases in which judges have ruled there’s no physical damage from mold if the mold can be cleaned off.
Add to this the fact that most policies exclude coverage for losses related to infectious diseases and it’s hard to imagine U.S. courts finding in favor of the plaintiffs – particularly when pandemic insurance existed well before COVID-19 and was largely ignored by business owners and risk managers.
Event Cancellation Insurance
COVID-19 has led to the cancellation of events from weddings to business conferences to the Tokyo Summer Olympics. Individuals and businesses buy event cancellation insurance against losses resulting from a cancellation due to circumstances beyond their control, including:
Weather or other natural events like hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes, and
Human-caused events such as labor strikes and acts of terrorism.
If a policy is an “all-cause” or otherwise unlimited policy, it could cover cancellations due to COVID-19, particularly if purchased before 2020.
Wimbledon’s organizers were among the few who bought event cancellation insurance that specifically included coverage for losses related to “communicable disease” after the 2003 SARS outbreak. They paid about £25.5 million (US$33 million) in premiums since then and are set to receive around £114 million (US$142 million) for this year’s cancelled tournament, according to GlobalData.
GlobalData said the event still faces a net loss. The total Wimbledon revenue loss is estimated at around £250 million (US$328 million).
The NCAA had a policy for its “March Madness” tournament that had to be cancelled. Its event cancellation policy covered just $270 million, even though the tournament generates more than $800 million a year. The organization reportedly was better prepared for a cancellation several years ago, when it built up savings of nearly $500 million to help mitigate the financial impact of a lost tournament.
“Then, in 2015, new leadership decided to spend more than $400 million of those savings without increasing the NCAA’s insurance coverage by following a questionable theory about the risk of saving that much money,” the Washington Post reports, citing former NCAA employees.
The availability of such coverage without exclusions for infectious disease may be limited or even more expensive in the wake of the current pandemic.
Underwriters routinely receive requests to add additional insureds to policies. But failure to add insureds correctly can open up insurers to potentially huge losses.
Companies typically need to add additional insureds to allow them to fulfill their obligations with their contractual partners. The requests are commonly associated with coverage for the marine and energy business, but construction and other industries often need to add insureds as well. Those requests can involve commercial general liability, excess and umbrella and other liability policies.
Maritime legal expert Harold “Hal” K. Watson recently conducted an interactive educational webinar on the proper addition of insureds for the American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU). Watson, a partner at Chaffe McCall LLP in Houston, is a former president of the Maritime Law Association of the U.S. and an internationally renowned authority in marine and energy insurance.
Using detailed examples from actual cases — including the Deepwater Horizon disaster — Watson illustrated how policy language surrounding additional insureds can cause claims to go wrong. He offered the audience of underwriters, brokers and claims adjusters practical suggestions for writing policy language in specific ways to prevent problems.
Watson explained how arguably ambiguous policy language became a significant factor in Deepwater Horizon, the offshore drilling rig that in April 2010 blew out, resulting in an explosion that killed 11 crew members and caused billions of dollars in pollution and environmental damage in the Gulf of Mexico. Transocean owned the drilling rig, but it was under contract to BP. Watson noted that the contract between the two companies required Transocean to name BP as an additional insured for some purposes. But there was uncertainty whether or not the insurance policy incorporated the limitations of the drilling contract.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially held that the insurance policy did not incorporate the limitations in the contract, but then certified the case to the Texas Supreme Court since Texas law applied. The Texas Supreme Court finally ruled that the insurance policy did incorporate the limitations, but if the Fifth Circuit’s original ruling had stood, BP would have been entitled to all of Transocean’s insurance coverage limits.
Watson explained how wording can be used to avoid situations that essentially give away an insured’s coverage. He also discussed other areas involving risks and exposures including:
The distinction and nuances between indemnity clauses and insurance policies.
The need for caution when providing broad coverage for additional insureds.
How additional insureds come into play in umbrella and excess liability policies, including specialized maritime policies.
The effect of anti-indemnity statutes pertaining to oil and gas wells in Texas and Louisiana
AIMU has seen growing interest in its educational offerings as it pivots from live to virtual events. According to AIMU President John Miklus, there were nearly 100 attendees at the “Additional Insureds” webinar and a similar number at another recent webinar on yacht insurance fundamentals.
AIMU’s primary focus is on education of its members and the insurance community at large and continues to deliver its programs using innovative methods. Click here for more information on upcoming classes.
As states struggle to identify the best ways to reopen their economies, agencies, and schools from the coronavirus-related lockdown, legislatures have been moving forward legislation to protect them and the people they employ.
Virginia Approves Worker Health & Safety Standard
The Virginia Occupational Safety and Health (VOSH) – the state’s version of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) – will enforce a standard that mandates and, in some instances, exceeds guidance issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and OSHA, PropertyCasualty360.com reports.
The standard protects employees who raise reasonable concerns about infection control to print, online, social, or other media. It covers most private employers in Virginia, as well as all state and local employees.
The standard also requires building and facility owners to report positive COVID-19 tests to employer tenants. It exempts private and public institutions of higher education with reopening plans certified by the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia (SCHEV) and public-school divisions that submit reopening plans to the Virginia Department of Education. No such exemptions are provided to private elementary and secondary schools.
In addition to CDC and OSHA guidelines, the standard requires employers to:
Provide flexible sick-leave policies, telework, and staggered shifts when feasible;
Provide handwashing stations and hand sanitizer when feasible;
Assess risk levels of employers and suppliers before entry;
Notify the Virginia Department of Health of positive COVID-19 tests;
Notify VOSH of three or more positive COVID-19 tests within a two-week period;
Assess hazard levels of all job tasks;
Provide COVID-19 training of all employees within 30 days (except for low-hazard places of employment);
Prepare infectious disease preparedness and response plans within 60 days;
Post or present agency-prepared COVID-19 information to all employees; and
Maintain air handling systems in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards.
Special Legislative Session for Tennessee Liability Bill
Weeks after Tennessee’s two legislative chambers failed to come to an agreement on legislation surrounding civil liability for coronavirus, Gov. Bill Lee called the state’s General Assembly to return next week for a special session, The Tennessean reports.
Lee issued an order asking members of the legislature to return to Nashville at 4 p.m. on Aug. 10 to take up the matter, which would extend broad immunity to businesses, schools, and other entities against COVID-19-related lawsuits.
The General Assembly also is expected to take up two other bills it failed to pass before adjourning in June. One would expand medical professionals’ ability to offer telehealth services and encourage insurers to cover those costs. The other would increase penalties for protesters camping and engaging in vandalism at the Capitol. A group of protesters has remained across the street from the Capitol for more than 50 days, resulting in the arrest of some for trespassing and writing messages in chalk.
Nevada Senators Advance Liability Shield Measure
State senators in Nevada, by an overwhelming majority, advanced legislation that would extend COVID-19 liability protections to businesses, nonprofits, schools, and governmental agencies and outlining several measures intended to protect hospitality workers, The Las Vegas Sun reports.
The legislation would extend COVID-19 liability protections to many entities that have “substantially complied with controlling health standards.” Provisions of the bill would sunset either upon the termination of the current state of emergency or in July 2023.
The measure wouldn’t extend to most private health care providers.
“Unease with the bill’s focus on the tourism and gaming industry crossed party lines,” the Sun writes. “Sen. Marcia Washington, D-North Las Vegas, said she was concerned why the bill singled out hospitality workers: ‘I’m here to represent, as far as I’m concerned, everybody, all the workers in the state of Nevada,’ Washington said.”
Marie Neisess, president of the Clark County Education Association, said the bill did nothing to help teachers going back into the classroom this year.
“Even with the best safety measures in place, educators and students will still be at risk,” Neisses said. Putting a bill in place that protects the employer rather than the employee is unacceptable.”
The bill now advances to the Senate floor for final action as lawmakers continue to meet in special session.
“Rebuttable Presumption” for Essential Workers Goes to N.J. Governor
New Jersey may become the next state to enact a law presuming that essential workers who acquire COVID-19 did so on the job, Business Insurance reports.
Lawmakers in the New Jersey Assembly and Senate on Thursday passed S.B. 2380 with a 42-27 vote in the Assembly and a 27-12 vote in the Senate. The bill, introduced in early May, would create a rebuttable presumption for essential workers seeking workers compensation for acquiring COVID-19 on the job during a declared state of emergency.
The bill identifies essential employees as those whose duties are considered essential during an emergency response and recovery operation; public or private sector employees whose duties are essential to the public’s health, safety, and welfare; emergency responders and workers at health-care facilities and those performing jobs that support a health-care facility, such as laundry, research, and hospital food service.
The bill moves to Gov. Phil Murphy’s desk. If signed into law, the legislation would take effect immediately and be retroactive to March 9. According to Business Insurance, a spokeswoman for Gov. Murphy declined to comment on whether he intended to sign the legislation.
