Let’s talk about Public Officials Liability

August 26th, 2010

At PGU, one of  our product niches is Public 

Officials  Liability insurance.  We have offered it

for almost 20 years.  You may know it as Public

Officials D&O,  Public Officials E&O or even

Public Officials  Management Liability.  And of

course Employment Practices Liability is

included.  A significant percentage of the

American work force is employed by some type

of governmentsl entity whose purpose is to

provide certain services.  All decisions made by

public officials regarding zoning, building

permits and employment practices carry the

potential of a devastating lawsuit.  We offer

protection to officials and commissioners of all

municipalities including towns, townships,

boroughs, villages, cities and counties.  Please

let us know if we can be of assistance to you.

E&S Wrap Up: Mergers, Expansions and Start-ups

August 13th, 2010

 

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/08/12/112396.htm

Cash flows in water deals

August 12th, 2010

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704216804575423633799731128.html

Obama signs emergency bill to halt teacher lay-offs

August 11th, 2010

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibkvUXhJ5N4Gt8aysY7y8S62PyFwD9HGSJ680

NJ Bill Proposed to sift out Frivolous Lawsuits against Public Entities

July 21st, 2010

Bill Proposes Screening Panels To Sift Out Frivolous Suits vs. Public Entities
Michael Booth
July 15, 2010

Two state legislators are pushing a measure to help ward off lawsuits, many allegedly frivolous, that are stretching the threadbare finances of state and local governments.

The bill, introduced July 1, would establish pre-litigation screening panels whose favorable review of a suit’s merit would be critical to its success.

The panels, staffed by retired judges appointed by the chief justice on recall, would function as quasi-courts. Cases would be referred to them once answers are filed. The judges would have power to subpoena witnesses, documents or other evidence.

Based on all information adduced, a panel would opine whether a suit is frivolous or filed in bad faith or for harassment. The findings would be sent to the Superior Court, which could dismiss or modify the claims.

The panels also could impose sanctions on attorneys found to have acted unreasonably or in bad faith. The sanctions could consist of a civil penalty or an order to pay all or some of the public entities’ defense costs.

“Such lawsuits against public entities are especially egregious since the public entities are forced into expending a great deal of their limited resources in defending such claims,” even if they are eventually dismissed, say the bill’s sponsors, Sens. Gerald Cardinale, R-Bergen, and Nicholas Sacco, D-Hudson.

The bill “enhances the current procedures and establishes an effective dispute resolution mechanism early in the process,” they say, referring to the frivolous lawsuit statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1, and the court rule on frivolous litigation, R. 1:4-8, both of which provide for sanctions.

The bill, S-2184, will likely be referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Sen. Nicholas Scutari, D-Union, says he is “open-minded” but skeptical about whether it is necessary. “I think [the Tort Claims Act] already is a deterrent that provides for pretty strong immunity,” says Scutari, a lawyer himself. “But you do have to strike a balance between the need to protect public entities and the need to protect citizens from negligent actions, and sometimes public entities are negligent.”

Scutari says he is not aware of any upswing in frivolous lawsuits against public entities such as might warrant the measure proposed. “Let me see some evidence and then we’ll give the bill some consideration,” he says.

Judiciary officials have not yet reviewed the bill, spokeswoman Tammy Kendig says.

Timely Info on Network Security

May 27th, 2010

Privacy and Security: Ignorance is not always bliss

Author

Mark A. Smith, CPCU, RPLU

Swett & Crawford

There is no question about it. Most clients are unaware of their new liabilities under state and federal privacy laws. Unfortunately, unlike the old cliché, “ignorance is not always bliss “.

In today’s economy, even if clients are aware of their new liabilities, they are likely too stressed from trying to keep their doors open to be able to afford a premium for a new coverage they may not fully understand.

These facts present the typical retail agent a serious challenge. How do they educate their clients about their new liabilities, let alone explain and sell a new coverage most clients don’t understand and really don’t want to buy? Similar to the difficulty of selling Employment Practices Liability in the mid 1990’s, it would be easy walk away, but the reality of these new exposures is too scary to ignore. In fact, doing so could lead to an agent’s own E&O claim later down the road.

Like EPL, state and federal legislation is driving this train. Since 2003 over 45 states* have enacted privacy laws applicable to any business or public entity. At the federal level, the HITECH Act went into effect this past February, and unless delayed again, the Red Flag Act becomes effective in June 2010.

All of this new legislation has very specific notification requirements if private confidential information is unintentionally released. Some laws even have enforcement teeth in the form of fines or penalties. Any client holding personal information from out of state customers must comply with any of the applicable 45 state laws, multiplying their potential for a regulatory violation and a potential fine.

Privacy breaches are simply defined as unintentional or accidental disclosure of personal confidential information. Most arise from lost or stolen laptops but may stem from errant emails, mislabeled mailings or an unintentional posting on a website or in a document. Security breaches often involve more sinister scenarios with potentially serious financial consequences for either the client or the client’s customers. These often involve the failure of the client’s security to

protect information secured in the client’s computer system: a computer hacker stealing credit card numbers or a rogue employee selling off stolen social security numbers of customers to a crime ring for quick cash.

Third party liabilities from privacy or security breaches are expected to grow. For example, as medical files migrate to on-line systems, imagine the claim filed by a plastic surgeon’s patient if the procedures were disclosed to the public by a hacker if an extortion demand is not paid! An increasing number of claims are filed by credit card companies directly against merchants who have suffered security breaches involving customers’ credit card numbers. Contractual liability issues are also surfacing as many entities outsource much of their confidential data to third party vendors for accounting, data processing, billing, ecommerce or other services. A breach occurring while this information is in the possession of the vendor does not waive the regulatory requirements of the entity who entrusted it to them. Therefore, contractual transfers of these risks are increasing, especially with regards to health care entities in responding to the HITECH Act. Healthcare providers are inserting indemnification agreements into their “Business Associate Agreements” with their service providers (BA’s) who work with patient’s medical information on their behalf.

Another issue is liability arising from the disclosure of third party, confidential corporate information. Clients are more likely to be sued by corporate entities with whom they have signed a non-disclosure agreement if that information is later disclosed. Consider the unfortunate insurance agent whose laptop is stolen containing the latest financial statements of a financially distressed contractor unencrypted on the hard drive! That information, if made public, could potentially put that contractor out of business.

Standard insurance coverages do not provide the protection clients need to address their regulatory responsibilities and third party exposures. In response, over twenty insurance carriers now offer some form of both third party and first party protection. These policies, many introduced in the last year, include a highly complex array of insuring agreements, policy exclusions, endorsements and other options with no standardized coverage existing between carriers. First party coverages, which are direct losses clients may incur even in the absence of a third party suit, include notification and credit monitoring expenses, data restoration costs, crisis management, extortion and business interruption, all with various sublimits, deductibles or coverage triggers.

Agents need to take a deep breath and first familiarize themselves with the various privacy laws and the basic coverages available in the marketplace prior to addressing these issues with clients. Once these are understood, its time for posing a series of important questions in discussions with the client, assisting both the client and agent in understanding the client’s true exposures. For starters, a few of these may include:

Are you aware of the state and federal privacy laws and your notification requirements?

Do you have any personal confidential client information stored on computers or in paper files on premises?

Do customers use their credit cards to purchase goods on your website?

Do you sign any confidentiality agreements regarding any information provided to you by others?

Do you outsource any services to third party vendors which may involve a client’s information?

Hopefully, after such a discussion, the client’s eyes will be open to their true exposures. They may not be happy with these facts, but it’s now in their court – either move forward and apply for coverage or ignore them at their own peril.

*To view your state’s law, go to:

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/TelecommunicationsInformationTechnology/SecurityBreachNotificationLaws/tabid/13489/Default.aspx

© 2010 The Swett & Crawford Group, Inc.

Do you sign any indemnification agreements with clients as respects their information they entrust to you?

New policy forms coming!

May 26th, 2010

We are currently rewriting our Public Officials, Educators and Police Professional Liability policy forms. We expect to have the new forms available by 3rd quarter 2010. More news to follow….

Professional Governmental Underwriters launches new website

November 22nd, 2009

Professional Governmental Underwriter, Inc. has launched a new website. PGU, a full-service risk management company is dedicated to assisting public, educational and non-profit entities in the management of their professional liability exposures.

The website will provide a platform to help support their clients. It includes improved customer service features including a company blog.

pguifrontpage