About // Insurance Carriers // FAQs // Blog // Contact // (800) 525-3817

Personal Insurance

We’ve got all the kinds of coverage you need, from car and home to motorcycle and boat insurance. Give us a call today or request a quote to find out how affordable insurance coverage can be.

 
Commercial Insurance

You’ve worked hard to build your business. Don’t let all that be for nothing by leaving yourself, your employees, and your future unprotected. We can help you find complete coverage at an affordable price.

Current Clients

Request Service
for Your Policy

Contact Us
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Thursday
    Feb222018

    U.S. Supreme Court Strengthens Employers' Hand Against Age Discrimination Claims

    The American workforce is growing older and the economy is struggling. These two factors indicate that, as companies lay off workers to cope with a slow economy, older workers who lose their jobs may increasingly take their former employers to court for alleged age discrimination. However, a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court may make it harder for workers to win those lawsuits.

    Jack Gross, a 54 year-old claims administration director for a financial services firm, was reassigned in 2003 to the position of claims project coordinator; some of his duties were transferred to a person in her forties whom he formerly supervised. Because he lost some of his duties, he considered the move a demotion and sued his employer a year later, claiming a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that it must find in Gross's favor if he proved that he had been demoted and that age played a part in the employer's decision. The jury did return a verdict in his favor and awarded him lost wages. An appeals court reversed the ruling, saying that the judge's instructions were incorrect, and Gross appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    On June 18, 2009, a divided court ruled against Gross. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that a person suing for a violation of the ADEA must prove that the employer would not have taken the action if not for the person's advanced age. The employer does not have the burden of proving that it would have taken the action regardless of the employee's age, even when the employee has evidence that age was one factor in the decision. He also wrote that the ADEA requires the employee to show that age was the primary reason for a demotion, not just one of multiple reasons. He noted that Congress had the opportunity to prohibit considering age among other factors and neglected to do so.

    Justice John Paul Stevens denounced the majority's interpretation of the ADEA as "an unabashed display of judicial lawmaking." Noting that the court had interpreted other anti-discrimination laws to prohibit discriminatory actions based partly on a protected characteristic, he said it was inconsistent and arbitrary for the court to apply a different standard to ADEA violations. He pointed to a previous decision where the court held that an action was illegal if discrimination against a protected characteristic was "a motivating factor" in the decision. Justice Stephen Breyer added that to apply the majority's standard "is to engage in a hypothetical inquiry about what would have happened if the employer's thoughts and other circumstances had been different." The answer, he wrote, will often be far from obvious.

    This decision should be good news for employers and their insurance companies. Employment Practices Liability Insurance policies normally cover employment terminations, demotions, decisions not to hire or promote, and denials of employment benefits based on factors such as age, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, and others. This decision should result in fewer successful lawsuits against employers for alleged age discrimination, with a corresponding drop in payments under EPLI policies for these actions. While insurance companies will still incur the cost of legal defense, they are less likely to pay for judgments against employers.

    Because the court based its reasoning on Congress's failure to clearly prohibit actions based even in part on age, members of Congress may seek to change the law. Employers should continue to avoid any actions that older workers could perceive as unfairly discriminatory. If that proves to be unworkable, they should work with their attorneys and insurance agents to ensure that their practices are legal and their insurance coverages adequate.

    Tuesday
    Feb202018

    Safeguarding Your Wedding Ring

    Wearing a wedding ring is a tradition that dates back centuries. According to The Knot.com, the custom began with the Romans, who believed that “the vein of love" in the fourth finger of the left hand traveled directly to the heart.

    Today, brides and grooms still exchange rings as a symbol of love. Because your wedding ring has such deep sentimental value, you want to do all you can to take care of it. Here are some tips from DiamondHelpers.com:

    • Protect the setting - Take your diamond off and put it in a safe place when washing dishes. Never put it near the sink because it can accidentally fall down the drain. Avoid wearing your diamond when gardening or during household repairs, since these activities might scratch the setting or damage the prongs that keep the stone secure.
    • Avoid exposing your diamond to household chemicals - Chlorine and hairspray can accumulate on the surface of a diamond and dull it. Periodic cleanings are crucial if you want to keep your diamond brilliant and prismatic.
    • Clean your diamond - Gently scrub it with a soft-bristle brush in a solution of plain alcohol diluted in warm water. Periodic ultrasonic cleanings by your local jeweler are also recommended to clean hard-to-reach areas under the settings.
    • Check the prongs - Be sure to occasionally take your diamond ring to a trusted local jeweler to check for loose prongs. They can weaken or break, even with normal wear.

    Another important way to protect your wedding ring is to have adequate insurance should it be lost or stolen. Start by examining your homeowner's or renters' insurance. Although this policy may cover your ring if it is stolen, there may be no coverage if it is lost. Read your policy carefully, as it may have a coverage limit for certain kinds of personal property, such as your wedding ring. If the value of your ring exceeds the policy limit, or if you want to ensure that you have coverage if the ring is lost, consider purchasing a rider.

    A rider is an endorsement to a homeowner's or renter's insurance policy that provides coverage for a particular piece of personal property. Items such as jewelry or furs whose full value is not covered under standard policies are typically covered by riders.

    Typically, the additional premium required to insure a wedding ring would be approximately $1-2 per $100 of appraised value. For example, a ring appraised for $10,000 would cost about $100-200 per year to insure, but maybe slightly more in higher crime areas. To request coverage, you must have your wedding ring appraised and provide a certified copy of that appraisal to your insurer.

    Thursday
    Feb152018

    When It Comes to Insuring Losses, Contractors Have Options

    The commercial insurance market can often be a difficult place for contractors. The insurance industry goes through market cycles; companies that are eager to insure contractors today may have no desire to do so when their losses mount and the market tightens. Because of this uncertainty, larger contractors often consider alternative markets for financing their risks of loss. One alternative is a captive insurance company, which is created and owned by one or more non-insurance companies to insure the owners' loss exposures. Other options include self-insurance (paying losses out of pocket) and insurance options such as dividend plans, large deductible plans, retrospective rating plans, risk retention groups and purchasing groups.

    According to Business Insurance magazine, there were more than 5,200 captive insurance companies operating in 2008, falling into several types. Single parent captives are owned by one company. Group and association captives are owned by multiple entities. For example, groups of contractors could form captives to insure themselves and others. Businesses that cannot afford the capital requirements of a captive can "rent" one from an insurance company or reinsurer, allowing them to share in the risks and the profits. Captives often use what is called a "fronting" mechanism, where an insurance company or reinsurer issues and administers the policies and handles the claims, and the insured businesses pay for the losses. Captives may insure the risks of their major owners only, or they may also insure other organizations.

    Large companies may choose to self-insure; groups of companies in particular industries may band together to self-insure the risks of the group. For example, in some states groups of contractors have formed trusts to self-insure for workers' compensation losses. Companies may also choose to partially self-insure by purchasing a large deductible program (one with a deductible of $100,000 or greater per occurrence) for workers' compensation. Retrospective rating plans, while still insurance policies, are closer to self-insurance in that the final premium includes the amount of the business' losses during the policy term, subject to a minimum and maximum. Dividend plans are types of insurance policies that typically offer the business the chance of receiving a portion of the premium back via a dividend should losses fall below a specified level. Risk retention groups are groups of businesses in the same industry that have created an insurance company for liability coverage. Purchasing groups are groups in the same industry who band together to buy liability insurance from one insurance company.

    Each alternative has advantages and disadvantages. Captives may offer tax advantages, they cut out the portion of the premium spent on insurance company overhead and profit, and they give the owners control over risk management. However, they must meet large capital requirements to comply with state laws, and fronting arrangements still require insurance company involvement. Self-insurance, large deductible and retrospective plans reduce premium costs, give businesses some control over their loss costs, and provide incentives for safe operations, but they can also be a drain on cash flow and their ultimate costs may be hard to predict. Contractors that can predict their future losses with reasonable accuracy may find these plans advantageous.

    Since all of these options require contractors to finance at least some losses themselves, they should have access to significant financial resources before using any of them. Also, the options can be complex; a contractor should consult with a professional insurance agent to investigate each option's implications for the business. Traditional insurance is no longer the only financial protection option available to contractors, but it would be unwise to jump into an alternative without learning the facts.

    Tuesday
    Feb132018

    Using a Cell Phone While Driving Is Similar to Driving Under the Influence

    A 2005 study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that drivers who use cell phones while driving were four times more likely to get involved in an accident. It also concluded that accident risk wasn’t affected by whether the driver was using a hand-held phone or a hands-free phone.

    New research from Carnegie Mellon University shows that just listening on a cell phone while driving is enough to distract a driver.  In this study, 29 volunteers used a driving simulator while inside an MRI brain scanner. They steered a car along a virtual winding road, driving at a high, fixed rate of speed. They were tested while driving undisturbed, and while driving and trying to decide whether a sentence they heard was true or false. The researchers measured activity in 20,000 brain locations, each about the size of a peppercorn.

    After a thorough analysis of the data, the researchers were able to conclude that:

    • When the drivers were tested while listening to the sentence to see if it was true or false, they lost 37 percent of the normal activity of their brain’s parietal lobe. This is significant because this area of the brain is the one motorists rely on the most when driving. The parietal lobe assimilates all the information the body receives from the senses, and uses it to determine how near/far perceived objects are. There was also a decrease in the activity of the occipital lobe, which assimilates visual information.
    • When the drivers were tested while listening, they lost their ability to control the car. They not only were unable to stay in their lane, but they frequently hit objects such as guardrails. These are the kinds of driving errors most closely associated with motorists who drive while under the influence of alcohol.
    Thursday
    Feb082018

    Same-Sex Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

    Over the past few decades, employers have become increasingly aware of the dangers of tolerating sexual harassment in the workplace. Many businesses now have formal policies on the subject. Insurance companies have made employment practices liability insurance available to protect businesses from the financial consequences of alleged harassment claims. When people imagine a sexual harassment situation, they may think of a male employee harassing a female one. However, that is not the only possible scenario. As society has grown more accepting of gay and lesbian lifestyles, such employees have become more comfortable revealing this aspect of themselves. One consequence of this is the potential for same-sex sexual harassment claims.

    The U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the matter of same-sex sexual harassment in a 1998 decision, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. Joseph Oncale worked on an offshore oil platform as part of an eight-man crew. Three members of the crew forcibly subjected him to sex-related, humiliating actions in front of the other crewmen; two of them sexually assaulted him and one threatened him with rape. His complaints to company supervisors produced no improvement in the situation; in fact, the supervisor verbally abused him. He eventually quit due to the harassment and verbal abuse. He sued the company, but the trial and appellate courts ruled that, as a male employee, he had no cause of action under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the alleged harassers were also male. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed.

    Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that there was no justification in the law for excluding same-sex harassment claims from its requirements. The prohibition of sexual harassment, he wrote, forbids behavior "so objectively offensive as to alter the 'conditions' of the victim's employment." However, he cautioned that the social context in which behavior occurs weighs on whether it is harassment. "A professional football player's working environment is not severely or pervasively abusive, for example, if the coach smacks him on the buttocks as he heads onto the field-even if the same behavior would reasonably be experienced as abusive by the coach's secretary (male or female) back at the office…Common sense, and an appropriate sensitivity to social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between simple teasing or roughhousing among members of the same sex, and conduct which a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would find severely hostile or abusive."

    This implies that, for an employee to win a same-sex sexual harassment claim, the employee must suffer some kind of negative consequence in addition to the sexual nature of the behavior. If suggestive remarks are made in the person's presence but he suffers no resulting harm (such as denial of promotions or salary increases) and management responds to his complaints, a court will probably not find this to be harassment. Conversely, if his work conditions deteriorate because he will not "play along" with his harassers, the court will be more likely to rule in his favor.

    Employers should be aware that same-sex sexual harassment is legally equivalent to heterosexual harassment, and they should not permit it to occur in their workplaces. They need not ban all suggestive talk from the workplace, but they cannot allow unfair treatment against those who object. Finally, unwanted physical contact such as sexual assault is never excusable or permissible.

    Employers should make sure their sexual harassment policies include statements about same-sex harassment, and they should educate supervisors and employees about the policy. All allegations of harassment should be promptly investigated. Finally, they should check with their insurance agents to make certain that they have the proper coverage for those claims that turn into lawsuits.


    Give Us a Shot
     
    Follow Us
         
       
     
    Contact Info
     
     
    Legal Stuff

    California license #0D60878
    Arizona license #151474
    Georgia license #175676
    Idaho license #464725
    Kansas license #753057454-000
    Oregon license #100156593
    Nevada license #18577
    New Mexico license #100009065
    Texas license #1991219
    Washington license #224471

    Copyright © 2013, Stanley M. Davis Insurance. All rights reserved.

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

    Powered by Awesurance

    Admin | Forms