• Homeowners
• Personal Insurance

Now that your children have grown up and moved out, they are responsible for their own well being and insurance. Peoples First has been providing exceptional personal insurance for young adults in the communities of Rock Hill, Fort Mill and Lancaster South Carolina for over 100 years, and we know how daunting insurance can be for them. Our experienced risk managers will go over the ins-and-outs of this seemingly mysterious industry with your adult children and explain to them the importance of their own insurance.

We find that many adult children assume that their parent’s home and auto insurance policies will extend to them and their possessions in the event of a loss. This assumption is often false. Insurance policies are typically clear and will cover an adult child only if they are a full-time resident of the insured’s household. When your children reach adulthood they need their own insurance even if they live next-door.

At this point in your adult child’s life, insurance may not seem important because they’re moving around with, generally, low-value possessions. However, even when possessions are few, everyone has a legal responsibility to handle the damage they accidentally cause to other people and their property. If your adult child asks you for insurance advice, give them the name of your Peoples First risk manager to help them get the exact protection they need.

Evolving business cultures have moved many Rock Hill, Fort Mill and other regional employers to allow their employees to telecommute full-time or part-time. Peoples First is seeing this more with our nonprofit clients than our other industry specializations, but in most every industry there is likely a job function that is being performed, on occasion, off-site. However big or small your telecommuter numbers, there are special insurance considerations for your business to understand.

Property Considerations

There are gaps between your business insurance policies and your employees’ homeowners policies, leaving you vulnerable to loss due to property theft or damage. If your employee is using your company’s computer equipment to perform their job from their home, it may not be covered. Additionally, if employees use their own computer to perform company work, it may not be covered either. This is because residential insurance policies severely restrict or exclude coverage for business property. A further complication is that business property usually consists of high-valued items that are vulnerable to damage and/or to theft. Such property includes fax machines, copiers, computers, computer peripherals (monitors, printers, scanner, modems, routers), phones, answering machines, PDAs, etc.

Liability Considerations

Personal insurance policies that include liability protection typically exclude business-related losses. Further, different policies can be quite broad in interpreting how a loss is connected to “business.” Liability Policies A and B would routinely respond to handling an insured who spilled hot coffee on a guest in his home during the work day. What if the visitor was your company’s client rather than the employee’s social guest? Policy A may still offer coverage because it considers the coffee spill to be a common home hazard. Policy B, however, may flat-out exclude the loss because the injured person was in the home for a business reason.

Vehicle Liability

Your telecommuting employee will be using their personal vehicle less for going to and from work, but perhaps more for tasks related to their job, such as making deliveries or client calls. Many instances of job related use might be excluded from their personal auto coverage, which could result in a dispute.

Please read Part 2 in next Monday’s blog.

Part 2. In the 8th annual Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., Litigation Trends Survey Report, released in 2011, some emerging concerns were revealed. 405 companies were interviewed, almost all of them headquartered in the U.S. or U.K., regarding different sources of litigation and patterns they are noticing.

Respondents to the survey were concerned that the amount of litigation they face will increase in the coming years due to the more complex regulatory environment. In the United States labor law issues were identified as the number one source of additional litigation; in the United Kingdom it was contract disputes.

It’s important to consult with us about your contracts and customers, and to discuss possible laws that apply to your obligations under those agreements. While it won’t be possible to insure every conceivable risk – it is still worthwhile determining if specific expenses can be covered such as the cost of investigations and some forms of fines.

We specialize in commercial insurance for businesses in a wide variety of industries. Using our excusive Risk Watch™ process is a comprehensive approach to identifying risk and developing a plan to mitigate it. Please contact us today to discuss a review of your company’s process for responding to allegations of violating state or federal statutes and requirements.

Part 1.  In the 8^th annual Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., Litigation Trends Survey Report, released in 2011, some emerging concerns were revealed.  405 companies were interviewed, almost all of them headquartered in the U.S. or U.K., regarding different sources of litigation and patterns they are noticing.

A top emerging concern are the number of new regulations coming out across a wide variety of subject areas.  How confident are you in the ability of your company to comply with new regulations?  It’s difficult to keep up with every new law or requirement – for example, those designed to protect an individual’s right to privacy – and violations can quickly result in follow-on litigation.  Corporate insurance policies, such as General Liability or Umbrella forms, frequently contain language that restricts or eliminates coverage for the expenses associated with responding to suits alleging violations of state or federal law.

Even though we are in a period of more, not less, regulations and legislation you cannot count on corporate insurance programs to indemnify you for the expenses to fight allegations or pay penalties, fines, etc.

We specialize in commercial insurance for businesses in a wide variety of industries.  Using our excusive Risk Watch™ process is a comprehensive approach to identifying risk and developing a plan to mitigate it.  Please contact us today to discuss a review of your company’s process for responding to allegations of violating state or federal statutes and requirements.

Risk management for businesses in Rock Hill and Fort Mill goes beyond setting up processes to help protect your assets. It also involves using best practices once you’ve filed a claim to ensure you receive maximum recovery.

When filing an insurance claim, it is important to be truthful and to cooperate with your insurance company’s investigative procedure; not doing so may lead to a complete forfeiture of your rights. Read the following court case and learn the consequence for a retail business.

A fire in an insured’s furniture store caused damage to the merchandise, fixtures, and leasehold improvements, and the insured filed proof of loss in the amount of $129,000. Of this amount, $71,000 was for damage to merchandise “in sight” after the fire; approximately $20,000 for merchandise missing or not identified after the fire; and about $38,000 covered damage to the improvements, betterments and fixtures.

The insured and the insurance company were unable to agree upon the amount of the loss. The company conducted numerous oral examinations under oath of the insured’s principal officers and its accountant. During the last hearing, the insured announced that it was amending its proofs of loss by withdrawing the “missing merchandise” portion of its claim, reducing its total claim to $109,000.

At the same time, the insured, pursuant to policy provisions, demanded an appraisal and named its appraiser, but the insurance company refused to take part in any appraisal because of the insured’s intentional and fraudulent concealments, misrepresentations, and refusal to produce documents and information during the examination. The insurer denied liability because of the insured’s breach of warranties.

Judgment was entered in favor of the insurance company. The court stated that the policies were void because the insured had willfully refused to answer questions and produce documents. The higher court affirmed the judgment insofar as it held that the insured was not entitled to an appraisal. However, it ruled that the questions of the insured’s breach of policy provisions (their refusing to answer questions, etc.) were triable issues of fact, and the judgment was modified accordingly.

Peoples First helps its clients through simple and complex claims processes to ensure maximum, allowable benefit according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Contact us should you ever be in need of assistance.

An insurance policy is a legal contract that exchanges an insurance company’s obligation to pay for certain losses if the person covered by the policy pays a required premium. This holds true whether the policy covers your home, car, boat, life, airplane, jewelry or business. If there is a serious dispute between you and your insurance carrier regarding the coverage of a loss, a courtroom often becomes the setting for resolving the matter, but not always.

To Sue or Not to Sue?

In many instances, filing a lawsuit is unavoidable. For instance, when a person seeking coverage has his claim denied, a lawsuit may be the only action that is available. But seeking satisfaction in court can be its own problem. Court calendars (dockets) are often backed up so it could take months or even years before a hearing can take place. Trials may be followed by one or more appeals. The legal expense can be staggering, involving court costs, filing fees, attorney costs, research costs, fees for expert witnesses and a host of other expenses. Time and cost considerations are great incentives for finding other methods to resolve disputes.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

When disagreeing about the amount that should be paid for a loss, mediation and arbitration are popular alternatives to suing your insurance company. Each is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) since they are alternatives to going to court.

• Mediation – This process involves the two parties meeting to discuss their situation with the help of a mediator. The mediator typically has special training and a legal, financial or similar background. As a disinterested party, the mediator studies information from both sides of an argument. Mediation sessions begin with each party fully explaining their position to the other party and the mediator. It is critical that each party is able to explain their side of the issue without interruption. The mediator then discusses each party’s position in private. Afterwards, the mediator shuttles between the parties and tries to negotiate a settlement. The most important features of mediation are that the process is voluntary and the disputing parties are actively involved in reaching a solution.
• Arbitration – This is a method that is frequently required by an insurance policy provision. Under arbitration, you and the insurance carrier each select a representative (arbitrator). Once the arbitrators are selected, they agree on another arbitrator who acts as the arbitration judge. The three persons discuss the merits of the situation and, once any two of the three persons agree on a settlement amount, the process ends. Arbitration differs from mediation in two important respects. First, the disputing parties are bystanders, waiting for a decision to be made by their selected representatives. Second, arbitration is (generally) binding on both parties.

If you are in a dispute with your insurance carrier, no course of action is perfect. Considering the cost and time involved with lawsuits, it makes sense to take advantage of other options to handle high-stakes disagreements. If you need more information, Peoples First is able to navigate you towards an advisable way to reach agreement with your carrier.

September is National Preparedness Month, which reminds us to review our insurance policies to determine what perils are and are not covered, as well as to decide which risk management steps to take to lessen the potential impact of a loss.

Nearly the entire  East Coast felt the recent Virginia earthquake to some degree. While there was little to no damage in Rock Hill and the rest of York County, it was a reminder that we are not immune from natural disasters (if this year’s storms hadn’t already convinced you). Couple the earthquake with Hurricane Irene’s near-miss of South Carolina, and things could have been much worse for our state.

From an insurance perspective, it is very important for you to know that while your standard homeowners policy covers many causes of loss, earthquakes and floods are usually not included; these typically need to be purchased separately. Even if your home is not in a flood zone, a hurricane or heavy rain could still cause damage. As Ann Roberson, spokeswoman for the South Carolina Department of Insurance, states, “Everyone lives in a flood zone. It just depends how severe the flooding might be.”

We are not out of the woods with natural disasters yet. We are in peak hurricane season, and winter, which brings snow and ice storms, is not too far away. It is never too early to start thinking about how to prepare for these events. If you need help reviewing your policy or need tips on how to prepare for a natural disaster, call us today.

Our client had a workers compensation claim when their employee was severely injured. The insurance company was investigating the claim and things were at a complete standstill. The claimant was 30 days post accident with no answers regarding coverage from the company. Peoples First had numerous conversations with the Industrial Commission and was able to successfully advocate for our client. We spoke with the insurance company and impressed the importance of handling this claim correctly and they conceded by moving forward and accepting compensability.

Our insured had a large fire which destroyed storage building housing multiple pieces of equipment and tools. Due to policy limitations, the company was restricting certain areas of coverage. Peoples First researched the carrier position and demonstrated their position was flawed. As a result, our client received and additional $64,000 in coverage.