A: Yes. Despite the fact that many non-essential businesses remain closed, several business interruption claims have already been filed across the country. Texas has seen several lawsuits for lost business profits around the Harris County area. Oklahoma has had several major casinos file lawsuits. California lawsuits are popping up from high-end restaurants and chefs. Chicago area restaurants and theater owners have filed claims. Recently, the State of Missouri has even filed a federal lawsuit against the Communist Government of China for deception and deceit over the Coronavirus outbreak.
A: It is not uncommon to see policy language written as coverage going into effect a specific amount of time after the government issues the prohibition order. One of the most common ways we see this written is a “72-hour rule.” This provision would mean that coverage takes effect for business losses 72 hours after the Civil Authority Order is enacted by the government entity and the business owner is denied access to the property. This is an important provision to consider as many Civil Authority Orders by the government do not last over 48-72 hours. If that occurred, coverage would not be triggered and business losses would not be recoverable under the policy.
A: Pandemics are extraordinary catastrophes which can impact nearly every economy in the world so it is impossible to predict or manage risk. COVID-19 can be greatly contrasted with other natural disasters where risk can be assessed and contained, such as during hurricanes, tornadoes or wildfires. During COVID-19, all non-essential businesses in the country were impacted and within the same timeframe. This scenario does not fit within the intended rationale of insurance coverage and risk assessment provisions.
A. Yes, we have seen many. As I briefly mentioned, many governors have issued Executive Orders granting immunity to healthcare providers during the COVID-19 crisis.
Both New York and New Jersey have taken this one step further and have enacted statutes that provide the same.
-For example, the New York legislature has enacted the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act.
Another example of government action comes from the federal government and provides certain protections to manufacturers and distributors of products necessary for fighting against the spread of the virus.
-In order to alleviate concerns related to the expansion of manufacturing and distribution of such products and to expand immunity, the federal government took the following steps:
A. While an employee who is injured on the job usually must bring his or her claim for damages through the workers’ compensation system, there are exceptions allowing the employee to pursue both a claim for workers’ compensation and a direct claim for damages against the employer.
One of those exceptions is the “intentional wrong” exception. Basically, where the employee is injured as a result of a willful and deliberate act of the employer, he or she may pursue both a claim for workers’ compensation and a direct claim for damages against the employer.
In this case, while it is not explicit on the face of the complaint, it appears the employee’s estate is attempting to avoid the exclusivity bar by alleging that Walmart acted willfully, wantonly and recklessly by failing to implement proper health and safety measures.
A. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act helps ensure advance notice in cases of qualified plant closings and mass layoffs. It requires 60 days’ notice to employees prior to layoffs. Several employees of different companies have filed class action lawsuits for their employer’s failure to comply with the WARN Act during COVID-19 layoffs. One such lawsuit has been filed against Hooters restaurant.
A. Plaintiffs are making the argument that eBay allowed its sellers to price gouge protective equipment such as N95 face masks as well as household disinfectants. Plaintiffs’ theory is that, by eBay’s allowing these markups to occur and taking their fee from the transactions, they were complicit in the actions of the sellers.
A. While it is too early to tell which industry will ultimately have the biggest monetary fallout from these lawsuits, the American airline industry has seen class action lawsuits filed against five (5) of its top corporations.
A. While it is too early to make concrete predictions as to how this crisis will alter the litigation landscape as a whole, we do know the new narratives that are emerging will play a part in determining the ultimate impact. It took the litigation industry many years to fully realize that the litigation landscape had been altered by the 2008 financial crisis. If we react quickly, while applying the lessons of the past, it doesn’t have to take as long this time. The challenge for risk managers, litigators and claims professionals is not to wait to begin modifying their traditional approach to assessing risk, but instead to begin to incorporate the new narratives to better evaluate their existing and future matters. The key is to scan for the same types of stories we are seeing from the current crisis within the fact pattern of their litigation.
A. It is quite possible this crisis could radically accelerate the social inflation trends of the last decade. Consider how new immunity laws protecting nursing homes could cause jurors to feel resentment and anger. If they perceive the immunity laws as resulting from deal making by the wealthy and powerful, there could be a significant backlash taking nuclear verdicts to entirely new levels.
A. Right now every American is dealing with the question of how to balance the risks of leaving their home with the benefits of socializing, returning to work, and resuming their normal lives. These are risk/reward decisions which are precisely the themes defense counsel often need to procure at trial. We may be entering into a time when the majority of jurors are better able to understand that running a business requires that reasonable people have to decide between the balance of hoped-for rewards against known risks. Having experienced this balancing act for themselves as the quarantine slowly ends, jurors could more readily see themselves standing in a defendant’s shoes.
The bottom line is that jurors see stories in every lawsuit, and they give heroes the benefit of the doubt. They will punish anyone they think is a villain even if there are no claims for punitive damages. The impact on any area of litigation will be a function of which relevant groups wind up being canonized and which become villainized as a result of this pandemic. These new culture-wide narratives are what will ultimately determine how risk is analyzed and lawsuits are evaluated in a post-COVID-19 world.
A. Depending on the state and insurance policy language, there may be coverage and liability for one and not the other.
A. Potentially yes. If they are complicit to the actions, then they are jointly and severely liable for harm caused. In addition to fiduciary duties, there is exposure for knowingly violating the law.
A. Yes. Under XXXX during events like a pandemic, an employer can enforce temperature checks and may even be subject to lawsuits if they do not. Safe advice is DO IT.
A. Once businesses are allowed to return to work, employers are not required to accommodate employees unless an employee requires a reasonable accommodation under the ADA or is one who is vulnerable (such as the elderly or those with underlying health conditions).
A. If an employee is showing symptoms, employers have the right to send that employee home. However, if an employer tries to pick and choose employees allowed back to work based on age or who is “less vulnerable,” it will be subject to legal ramifications.
A. The employee can request unpaid leave if they have already used up paid leave and expanded leave provisions under the Families First Legislation. However, the employer is not obligated to hold the employee’s position if they choose to take unpaid leave.
A. Not under current law. Employers may offer hazard pay for people in high-risk jobs, but they are not obligated to do so.
A. The EEOC states that, during a pandemic, employers can require vaccinations. An employee may be entitled to an exemption if the vaccine would interfere with a medical condition or violate that person’s religious beliefs.
A. Yes. If an employer asks an employee if he/she is symptomatic, they can require the employee to report their condition as a matter of workplace-safety matter - but only under pandemic conditions. Such reported information should be protected as “confidential” under the ADA.
A. (See Workers’ Comp FAQs) The workers’ comp system is run on a state-by-state basis; but generally speaking, it is nearly impossible to determine where someone contracted an illness such as infectious disease. In some states, there have been orders and bills granting essential businesses/employees eligibility for workers’ comp.
A. (See Workers’ Comp FAQs) While workers’ compensation protects employers from other legal claims pertaining to work-related injuries or illnesses, if an employee believes the company was negligent – for example, by not providing personal protective equipment – then there are situations and states where courts might be open to such claims.
A. (See Workers’ Comp FAQs) Generally, no. COVID-19 presents the additional challenge of proving they were infected while at work. If they think they contracted the infection while on the job, they can probably sue the company they were working for. However, these are difficult cases to win under normal circumstances.
A. Probably not, if the business received aid from the Payment Protection Program (“PPP”).
In April, the Labor Department issued public guidance on the relationship between PPP and unemployment: "Barring unusual circumstances, a request that a furloughed employee return to his or her job very likely constitutes an offer of suitable employment that the employee must accept." On Tuesday, May 19, 2020, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin reported that workers who refuse to go back to work could lose their unemployment benefits under the Small Business Aid Program. "If [employers] offer back a worker and they don't take that job," Mnuchin said, "you will be required to notify the local unemployment insurance agency because that person will no longer be eligible for unemployment."
A. During the pandemic, the CDC and EEOC authorize employers to ask employees personal medical questions which will identify if they have COVID-19 symptoms. HIPAA still requires this information be kept confidential, but the employer should notify co-workers they were possibly exposed to COVID-19 without relaying any identifiers of the infected employee.
A. Many large or busy employers are hiring outside medical and legal companies to assist them in their workforce re-entry plan of action. Employers should designate a specific administrator responsible for COVID-19 job related issues and enforcement.
A. It is impossible to say who will file a lawsuit, but employers have a strong defense against negligence the more they follow OSHA and CDC recommendations and take proper precautions to prevent the spread of the virus.
A.
A. Cleaning and disinfecting
A.
A: AT A MINIMUM:
A) Ensure home health aides always wear gloves and masks when attending to clients’ ADL needs
B) Prepare a short statement tailored to each client’s needs as to what actions the Agency and its staff perform and do not perform in terms of “nursing care,” have client’s sign it, and place it in client’s file.
A: Yes, although it is doubtful to be nationwide, we think the trend of states granting immunity for LTC facilities from COVID-19 suits will continue.
No, suits inevitably filed against LTC facilities will skirt the COVID-19 issue with Plaintiffs claiming the residents’ overall condition declined due to poor care provided by overworked staff, i.e., residents’ hygiene, turning and repositioning residents, assisting residents with meals all suffered because the residents’ acuity levels went up, but staffing levels did not.
A: Besides being able to claim the facility was following CMS directives, CMS is offering LTC facilities up to $3000/facility, funded by Civil Money Penalties collected, to purchase tablets/laptops capable of allowing residents to have video conferences with their family and friends. This is a good idea whether or not CMS provides funds for same.
A: It is unlawful for any LTC facility to detain a resident who is of sound mind from leaving a facility AMA. They should be discouraged from doing so, but you cannot require them to remain in the facility.
A. No. You are currently not required to cover this claim as there are defenses protecting the Carrier. Breaking it down, Oklahoma requires that:
(Several state representatives have publicly asked state-supported insurance companies to create the “presumption” that, if First Responders contract COVID-19, it is due to their employment. However, no response has been received yet as to whether these entities will do so.)
A. We anticipate the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission will handle COVID-19 claims the same as they have any other disease-based claims, i.e., most recently MRSA and SARS. This means that each case will be intensely fact-specific unless a presumption of causation is passed by Oklahoma lawmakers and added to Title 85A. For instance, health care workers will have a far easier time proving causation from work as opposed to a food service worker at a fast food establishment or an even a farther removed construction worker.
A. Again, it is fact-specific. If the claimant is able to avoid the characterization defense of COVID-19 not being covered based upon its “general public” provision, they would still be required to have a full trial on causation. A person who rarely works around the public yet contracts the disease would have a difficult time proving they contracted it at work. The Commission Judge would need to be able evaluate:
A. No. The general rules are controlled by the state’s workers’ compensation system and/or its Department of Labor. Depending on the state, when an employee is diagnosed with a disease or injury, the employee will usually be required to prove the disease or injury “arose out of” and “was contracted” in the course of “employment to receive benefits.” However, if a statutory presumption of compensability exists and the employee meets certain requirements, then the injury is “presumed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment” - usually contingent on the occupation. In most of the nine states which have passed presumptions, an employer still has the right to deny coverage and the matter can go to trial with the requirement that the employer has to prove “it is more likely than not” that the injury/disease did NOT arise out of nor was it contracted within the scope of employment. Therefore, even though the rebuttable presumption is present, it does not automatically entitle a claimant to benefits.
A. As mentioned in the Workers’ Compensation section of our website, Pinnacol Assurance, Colorado’s largest workers’ comp insurer, stated that some carriers have projected a 27% increase in workers’ compensation insurance premiums for employers if the presumption applies to the state’s full list of essential workers. When reviewing the general costs associated with COVID-19, actuarial estimates of coronavirus claims have “been all over the map.” Some states’ carriers have proposed some relief in this regard. Specifically, WCIRB, California’s largest provider of actuarial-based information and research including advisory-pure premium rates, indicated it had proposed rule changes for claims arising directly out of COVID-19 diagnoses with an accident date on or after December 1, 2019, to be excluded from the experience rate calculations of individual employers. The reasoning is that an occurrence or non-occurrence of COVID-19 workers’ comp claims are unlikely to be a “strong predictor” of an employer’s future workers’ compensation claim costs. Therefore, each carrier will have to deal with experience modifiers for workers’ compensation premiums in different ways. The best way is to closely follow your carrier to determine if there are any specific rules regarding COVID-19 claims. Some carriers are giving their insureds breaks on time for paying premiums as discussed in the next question below. One valuable resource is the National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) which gathers data to analyze industry trends. The NCCI website is extremely helpful for reviewing information on claims generally and COVID specifically.
A. This depends upon your carrier. For instance, in Oklahoma, CompSource Mutual, indicates on its website that it will give some employers a break on timeliness of premium payments. Below are examples of steps being implemented according to its website:
As you can see, there are some benefits depending on your policy and carrier. I would strongly suggest consulting your carrier or broker if you are a business owner finding yourself in the midst of workers’ comp payment problems. Do not let this pass you by.