December 30, 2011

Sample Employer Cell Phone Policy

Filed under: auto insurance, commercial insurance — cleavelandinsurance @ 5:01 pm

SAMPLE POLICY

Inattentive Driving and the use of cellular phones and other equipment while driving

                The (public Entity Name) has provided employees with certain equipment, including cellular phones, personal digital assistant (PDA) devices (i.e., “Blackberries, Palm Pilots, etc)  laptop/portable  computers  and  other  equipment  to  assist  employees  in accomplishing their job duties.
                 When using (public Entity Name’s) equipment, or when using the employee’s own equipment for work purposes, employees are expected to exercise care and follow all operating instruction, safety standards, and guidelines.
                  In particular, employees are not permitted to use cellular phones, PDA devices, and the like for work purposes while operating a motor vehicle.
                Similarly, employees are not permitted to use such devices at all while operating a (public Entity Name)-provided vehicle or while operating their own or another vehicle for work purposes, including traveling to or from business meetings.
                 If it becomes necessary in any manner that it not in compliance with this policy is expressly prohibited and falls outside the scope of employment with the (Public Entity Name).
                Employees are the refrain from doing any other activities while driving that may lead to being inattentive to their primary responsibility: to operate the motor vehicle safely with full attention given to driving.
               Any employee who is involved in an accident while using (Public Entity Name) equipment or vehicles, or while conducting (Public Entity Name) business, must promptly report the incident to his or her immediate supervisor, regardless of the perceived cause of the accident.
             Vehicles and equipment provided to employees by the (Public Entity Name) may not be used for  personal use without prior approval.
             Violation of this policy, including the improper, careless, negligent, destructive, or unsafe use of operation of (Public Entity Name) equipment or vehicles may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.

(This sample policy is intended to be used for guideline purposes only, in conjunction with risk management and loss control efforts. It is not intended that this sample policy be used to comply with the requirements of any law, rule or regulation. The final form of such a policy, and the resulting enforcement of it, is the responsibility of the entity in which it is used.)

December 29, 2011

CELL PHONE BAN FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

Filed under: auto insurance, commercial insurance — cleavelandinsurance @ 1:17 pm

CELL PHONE BAN FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

 

Truck drivers may face personal fines up to $2,750 for using handheld phones while driving and suspension or revocation of their commercial driver licenses for repeat offenses, under a new Federal regulation to be published in the Federal Register. The ban will take effect 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This will apply to CDL drivers driving commercial vehicles.

The regulation, which applies to interstate truck and bus drivers and all drivers of hazardous materials, follows an earlier regulation which prohibits texting for commercial drivers. Enforcement will be accomplished through local and state police agencies.

Employers who allow drivers to use handheld phones will face fines of up to $11,000 under the rule, which the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration proposed in December 2010. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposed the hazmat rule in April, and the joint final rule was announced Nov. 23.

The only way to fight a company fine is to have a strict policy ruling for all drivers, that prohibits the use of phones. Along with the policy the company must also be able to show evidence of enforcement of the stricter rule, and documentation that the rule has been explained to the employees. (Typically a sign off on understanding the new rules)

“This finale rule represents a giant leap for safety,” FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro said in a statement. “It’s just too dangerous for drivers to use a handheld cellphone while operating a commercial vehicle.”

Studies have shown that actions like texting and dialing a phone can greatly increase crash risk, so taking steps to curb these behaviors holds great promise to improve highway safety.

The rule also bans reaching for a phone that is out of reach and dialing a phone, but it does not ban hands-free use or using a single button to initiate, answer or end call.

From a compliance standpoint, I’m not sure how this new rule would apply if a driver were driving an intrastate job for a company that had a DOT number and occasionally operated across state. My guess is that it would apply in full. Purely from an insurance standpoint, you’ be better off to comply with the new requirements regardless of whether you operate intrastate or interstate. Lawyers will use this to sway juries toward bigger awards any time there are injuries from a vehicle accident involving cell phone usage. 

Following is a link to the 66 page finale rule: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/rulemakings/final/mobile_phone_NFRM.pdf

December 27, 2011

Insuring Reality Show Risks From Stapling Body Parts to Staircases

Filed under: commercial insurance — cleavelandinsurance @ 5:20 pm

Insuring Reality Show Risks From Stapling Body Parts to Staircases

By

December 21, 2011

NU Online News Service, Dec. 21, 2:00 p.m. EST

When Stephen Gilchrist Glover, better known as Steve-O of “Jackass” fame, wanted to staple his private parts to his leg during the taping of his own show, producers called Lorrie McNaught.

McNaught, reality television expert with Aon/Albert G. Ruben, says it’s her job to “find a way.”

“I have to find an insurer to cover these things—or find a way to make it insurable,” McNaught tells PC360.

That’s exactly what she did so that Steve-O could do what he is famous for—shock. To assuage the expected fear of an insurer to cover such an act, McNaught consulted a doctor to find out just where Steve-O could staple his leg without hitting anything important, like a blood vessel.

“After the doctor and I shared a laugh, he actually told me the place [Steve-O] could do it without seriously injuring himself,” McNaught says.

With more than 15 years working with networks and reality TV producers, McNaught fields numerous calls every day—each presenting insurance dilemmas.

“It’s challenging, and it can be nerve-wracking,” she says. “There can be a lot of people waiting. A crew can be on a Tarmac, waiting to get on a helicopter. Obtaining insurance is always the last call.”

The popularity of reality shows has ballooned and the wide-range of types keep McNaught on her toes and her negotiating skills sharp.

“A lot of these shows are seeking to make the audience gasp,” McNaught says. “That can get risky and, in order to get coverage, part of my job is convincing underwriters the risk is worth taking.”

For the most part, it is. The loss ratio is less than 3 percent, McNaught says. And coverage is mostly affordable. As reality television has evolved, brokers have forced producers to tighten liability releases contestants sign, and to fully explain the contract to them.

However, there are cases in which no insurer can be found—at least not for the stunt as it was originally drawn up. McNaught says one show wanted contestants to pass a baton to each other while sitting on a chair on top of separate biplanes.

“That one got a little crazy,” she explains. “They would have to be really close, the pilots’ would need to be perfect and the weather needed to be right.”

The show, fully insured, wound up doing the stunt—just without the passing of a baton.

When you watch a show such as “Fear Factor,” the risks are obvious. Contestants, for example, are asked to gather flags while climbing on the outside of a car that is dangling from helicopters 100 feet in the air. McNaught has worked with “Fear Factor” and other popular reality shows, such as “Survivor,” and sometimes, the biggest risks are the ones behind the scenes.

For instance, kidnap and ransom coverage is essential for any show leaving the country. Coverage for the confiscation of equipment is important as well, she says.

Location also plays a role. If you’re filming in Iceland, maybe insurance for a volcano eruption wouldn’t hurt. Taping in Florida during hurricane season definitely carries more risk. A remote spot away from medical services can be tricky too, McNaught says.

“These are all things I bring up that they may or may not have thought about,” she says. “But that’s what a good broker does.”

In fact, McNaught says she’s been presented with so many risk scenarios for so many different types of shows, she can normally predict what the show is going to do next.

But for all the talk about the risks associated with reality shows, the most claims are generated by a standard set of stairs.

“The walk-and-talk shows—the game shows,” answers McNaught when asked about the shows that produce the most claims. “Walking up and down a staircase.”

December 22, 2011

Top 7 Dangerous Dog Breeds

Filed under: Uncategorized — cleavelandinsurance @ 2:37 pm

Top 7 Dangerous Dog Breeds

By ,

July 27, 2011

1.5K

Dogs and insurance have been at odds for years and, because of some extremely bad claims situations, some carriers maintain lists of restricted breeds—breeds the carriers would not place homeowners’ coverage on due to perceived aggressive tendencies.

Because any dog can bite and cause injury, though, most state legislation focuses on a definition of what makes a dog dangerous and statutory provisions for how that dog is to be maintained. By defining certain actions as dangerous or vicious, states have made it possible for any dog to be listed as dangerous purely because of its behavior, and not because of its breed. This allows a sweet Doberman some leeway and puts the blame where it belongs: on the specific actions of a dog.

Related: The Eight Common Mistakes of Dog Bite Cases

While some insurers maintain a list of dog breeds for which they won’t insure, many insurers, like State Farm and Allstate, have changed their approach and have followed the states’ lead by not inquiring about dog breeds during the underwriting process. Instead, they only inquire about behavioral qualities such as past incidents of aggressive tendencies or behavior.

But not every insurer has made the switch. Many rely on a list of dog breeds from a report authored by the Centers for Disease Control entitled, “Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998.”

Below and on the following pages are the breeds that the CDC listed as most dangerous based on fatal human attacks caused, and therefore could be particularly prone to insurance claims.

 #1 Pitbulls

Dog Liability Claims

The CDC collected data from the Humane Society of the United States and media accounts related to dog bite attacks and fatalities for its report. While every dog and its owner is different, the Pitbull was at the top of the CDC’s list of dangerous breeds, with 66 dog bite-related deaths from 1979-1988.

States like Alaska define a dangerous dog as any dog that when unprovoked has ever bitten/attacked a human. In other states, once a dog has been labeled as dangerous, the owner must follow certain procedures in order to keep the dog.

#2 Rottweiler

Dangerous Dogs: Rottweiler

Despite howls from many owners of this dog breed, the CDC says Rottweilers ranked second in dog bite-related fatalities with 39 deaths from 1979-1988. When combined, Rottweiler and Pitbull breeds were involved in approximately 60 percent of human deaths in the CDC’s study.

In order to avoid discriminating against an entire breed, some states like Virginia have developed a dangerous dog registry, which provides the name and address of the owner, description of the dog and its offense that made it a dangerous dog, and the phone number for animal control in order to report further issues with the animal.

#3 German Shepherd

 Dangerous Dogs: German Shepherd

German Shepherds may be targeted for “banning” in certain areas, or refused coverage on some homeowners’ insurance policies because of their tendency to become territorial and protective, which can result in aggressive behavior. The CDC says German Shepherds were involved in 17 dog bite-related fatalities from 1979-1988.

Once a dog has been labeled as dangerous, many states require a fence or specific enclosure of reasonable strength to maintain the dog. The dog is usually not permitted to be out in public unless on a leash, and some states allow the dog out of the yard only for trips to the veterinarian. Most states also require a certain level of liability insura

#4 Husky-type

Dangerous Dogs: Husky-type

Most temperament descriptions of Husky-type breeds include such words as “outgoing” and “friendly.” However, this breed was responsible for 15 dog bite-related fatalities from 1979-1988, ranking it fourth on the CDC’s list.

States like Florida have a very specific definition of dangerous dog, which is as follows: has aggressively bitten, attacked, endangered, or inflicted severe injury on a human on public/private property; has more than once severely injured or killed a domestic animal while off an owner’s property; been used primarily or in part for dog fighting; or has when unprovoked chased/approached a person on the streets, sidewalks, etc. in a menacing fashion or attitude of attack (need 1 or more witnesses).

#5 Malamute

Dangerous Dogs: Malamute

Although similar looking to husky-type dog breeds, the Malamute is its own unique breed. Despite their distinctive appearance, this breed is not “part wolf.” However, the CDC notes that the breed was still involved in 12 dog bite-related fatalities from 1979-1988, ranking it fifth on the CDC’s list.

Dangerous Dogs: Doberman Pinscher

Doberman Pinschers were once common as guard and police dogs, and thus have a reputation of being intimidating and aggressive, especially towards strangers. In the CDC’s study, this breed was involved in nine dog bite-related fatalities from 1979-1988, ranking it sixth on the CDC’s list.

#6 Doberman Pinscher

#7 Chow Chow

Dangerous Dogs: Chow Chow

According to one pet site, Chows are known as an aggressive breed, fiercely protective of their people and property and should only be adopted by experienced dog owners who have the time and energy to devote to proper training and socialization. This temperament is reflected in the CDC’s data, which ranks it seventh in dog bite-related fatalities from 1979-1988 with eight.

  

 

 

December 19, 2011

Eyes on the Road: NTSB Calls for Ban on Personal Electronic Devices

Filed under: auto insurance, commercial insurance — cleavelandinsurance @ 3:34 pm

Eyes on the Road: NTSB Calls for Ban on Personal Electronic Devices

By

December 14, 2011

97

NU Online News Service, Dec. 14, 12:26 p.m. EST

After reviewing a fatal accident that occurred more than a year ago, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is calling for a nationwide ban on the non-emergency use of personal-electronic devices while driving.

Leigh Ann Pusey, president and chief executive officer of the American Insurance Association (AIA) called distracted driving—specifically texting-while-driving—a “major epidemic in our country.”

The AIA, a long-time outspoken proponent of curbing distracted driving, is in support of the NTSB’s recommendation.

“When you consider that driving is the most dangerous daily activity for the typical American, few issues are more important that our actions behind the wheel,” Pusey says in a statement. “This crisis [distracted driving] is the newest challenge to the safety of everyone sharing our roads and highways.”

The NTSB says it first investigated a distracted driving accident in 2002 (which resulted in five deaths) and has since seen the “deadliness of distracted driving across all modes of transportation.”

But it appears that its latest investigation, of an accident on Aug. 5, 2010, was the proverbial last straw.

Two people died in an accident involving a pickup truck, a Volvo “truck-tractor,” and two schools buses. The driver of the pickup and a person in one of the school buses died. Nearly 40 people were injured.

The NTSB says the driver of the pickup probably caused the accident because he or she was involved in a text-messaging conversation and was distracted.

The last text of 11 sent over a span of 11 minutes, was sent moments before the accident, says the NTSB.

“According to the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration], more than 3,000 people lost their lives last year in distraction-related accidents,” says Deborah A.P. Hersman, chairman of the NTSB. “It is time for all of us to stand up for safety by turning off electronic devices while driving.”

State Farm has also released new research related to distracted driving. The largest car insurer in the U.S. says while texting remains a concern, other mobile web services accessed by drivers—of all ages—is a concern.

Accessing the internet on cell phones while driving has increased nearly 14 percent from 2009 for drivers ages 18 to 29, according to a survey.

State Farm says it surveyed about 900 motorists.

Reading social-media networks while driving is up to 37 percent in 2011 and 33 percent admit to updating these sites while driving.

“The mobile web is a growing issue for safety advocates concerned about distractions while driving,” says David Beigie, State Farm spokesman. “While the focus has been on young people, the data indicates that motorists of all ages are increasing their use of the mobile web while driving.”

Of all drivers surveyed, 18 percent say they access the internet on a cell phone while driving. 

December 9, 2011

Auto body shops vs. insurance companies

Filed under: auto insurance, commercial insurance — cleavelandinsurance @ 5:29 pm

Please click below to view article.

Auto Body Shop vs Insurance