Subrogation Attempt Rejected
St. Paul Mercury Insurance unsuccessfully sought to recover $14.5 million from a security company after a propane tank exploded in an insured’s building.
A tank of liquefied petroleum — which later was determined to be damaged or defective prior to delivery — had been delivered to a jeweler who rented space in the building.
St. Paul Mercury Insurance, as subrogator for Mallers, claimed the security company was negligent and breached its contract by not stopping or reporting the delivery of the propane tank. The insurer argued that Aargus “knew or should have known” that it was creating “a dangerous condition.”
The contract between the building owner and the security company did not include specific responsibilities regarding the inspection of deliveries.
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, rejected the insurer’s argument, granting a summary judgment. That court also rejected affidavits from experts, who offered their opinions that appropriate security procedures would not permit delivery of propane tanks. On appeal, the court agreed, ruling that neither expert was part of the contract between the building owner and security company, and that their views on high-rise security were “irrelevant.”
The appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision that the security company “never undertook a duty to check on propane tanks” as part of its responsibilities.
Scorecard: St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. will not recoup the payment of $14.5 million it paid in claims following an explosion.
Takeaway: A court will not expand a defendant’s duties beyond what the parties agreed upon in their contract.
Insurer Need Not Pay for Atrium Collapse Settlement
The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a summary judgment which allowed ACE American Insurance Co. to reject reimbursement of a $26 million settlement claim.
The claim resulted from the Sept. 5, 2007 collapse of an 18-story, 2,400 ton glass atrium that was being built as part of a $900 million Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in Oxon Hill, Md. Gaylord hired PTJV, a joint venture between Perini Building Co. and Turner Construction Co., to serve as construction manager.
A year after the collapse of the atrium, PTJV filed a complaint against Gaylord for establishment and enforcement of a mechanic’s lien, breach of contract, quantum meruit, and violation of the Maryland Prompt Payment Act. PTJV alleged Gaylord owed it nearly $80 million. Gaylord countersued for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, seeking reimbursement of about $65 million due to PTJV’s alleged failure to properly manage scheduling and costs, and failing to build a high-quality project at the agreed-upon price.
Gaylord and PTJV agreed to settle the Gaylord action on Nov. 28, 2008, with Gaylord paying an additional $42.3 million and PTJV crediting back $26 million. PTJV did not seek ACE’s consent prior to entering the settlement agreement, and did not seek reimbursement for the settlement amount until about six months afterward, according to court documents.
ACE denied payment, and PTJV filed suit alleging breach of contract and bad faith. A district court upheld ACE’s subsequent motion for a summary judgment because of the lack of prior consent to the settlement, and the appeals court agreed with that decision.
Scorecard: ACE will not need to pay a $26 million insurance claim, following an insured’s settlement of litigation without prior consent.
Takeaway: The decision breaks away from the trend of courts requiring evidence of prejudice when an insurance company denies coverage due to lack of notice.
ERISA Time Limits Upheld
The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition of a Wal-Mart public relations executive to litigate the denial of long-term disability benefits under the retail store’s plan, administered by Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co.
A unanimous decision of the High Court ruled that Julie Heimeshoff failed to abide by the three year statute of limitations in filing her request for judicial review of the insurance company’s denial of benefits.
Although Heimeshoff filed the litigation within three years after the final denial of benefits, she did not file it within three years after “proof of loss,” as was required in the plan documents.
Suffering from lupus and fibromyalgia, Heimeshoff stopped working in June 2005. In August of that year, she filed a claim for long-term disability benefits, listing her symptoms as “extreme fatigue, significant pain, and difficulty in concentration.” That claim was ultimately denied by Hartford when her rheumatologist never responded to requests for additional information.
Hartford later allowed her to reopen the claim without need for an appeal, if the physician provided the requested information. After another physician evaluation and report, Hartford’s physician concluded Heimeshoff was able to perform the “activities required by her sedentary occupation.”
In her complaint, which was joined by the U.S. government, Heimeshoff argued the controlling statute should be the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which provides a two-tier process of internal review and litigation. A district court granted a motion by The Hartford and Wal-Mart to dismiss the lawsuit. That was upheld by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The High Court agreed, ruling the statute of limitations was reasonable and there were no contrary statutes that should control the process.
Scorecard: The Hartford need not pay long-term disability benefits to the employee.
Takeaway: The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision resolves a split among various federal appeals courts, some of which had upheld plan provisions and others which found they were not enforceable.
Court Reverses Product Liability Decision
Indalex was seeking duty-to-defend coverage from the insurer under a commercial umbrella policy as a result of lawsuits filed in five states alleging the company’s doors and windows were defectively designed or manufactured, resulting in water leakage, mold, cracked walls and personal injury.
The trial court ruled there was no obligation to defend or indemnify Indalex as the claims involved “faulty workmanship” and thus did not constitute an “occurrence.” It dismissed the lawsuit.
On appeal, the higher court found that the underlying claims did count as “occurrences” because the defective products led to damages elsewhere and were “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the Insured.”
The court ruled that the lower court improperly ignored legally viable product-liability-based tort claims, rejecting the use of the state’s “gist of the action” doctrine, which prevents a “plaintiff from re-casting ordinary breach of contract claims into tort claims.” The case was remanded to the lower court for further action on the claims.
Scorecard: National Union may incur claims up to $25 million as Indalex defends itself from the underlying lawsuits in five states.
Takeaway: The decision provides an expansive reading of an insurance company’s obligations in commercial general liability coverage.
Coping with Cancellations
Airlines typically can offset revenue losses for cancellations due to bad weather either by saving on fuel and salary costs or rerouting passengers on other flights, but this year’s revenue losses from the worst winter storm season in years might be too much for traditional measures.
At least one broker said the time may be right for airlines to consider crafting custom insurance programs to account for such devastating seasons.
For a good part of the country, including many parts of the Southeast, snow and ice storms have wreaked havoc on flight cancellations, with a mid-February storm being the worst of all. On Feb. 13, a snowstorm from Virginia to Maine caused airlines to scrub 7,561 U.S. flights, more than the 7,400 cancelled flights due to Hurricane Sandy, according to MasFlight, industry data tracker based in Bethesda, Md.
Roughly 100,000 flights have been canceled since Dec. 1, MasFlight said.
Just United, alone, the world’s second-largest airline, reported that it had cancelled 22,500 flights in January and February, 2014, according to Bloomberg. The airline’s completed regional flights was 87.1 percent, which was “an extraordinarily low level,” and almost 9 percentage points below its mainline operations, it reported.
And another potentially heavy snowfall was forecast for last weekend, from California to New England.
The sheer amount of cancellations this winter are likely straining airlines’ bottom lines, said Katie Connell, a spokeswoman for Airlines for America, a trade group for major U.S. airline companies.
“The airline industry’s fixed costs are high, therefore the majority of operating costs will still be incurred by airlines, even for canceled flights,” Connell wrote in an email. “If a flight is canceled due to weather, the only significant cost that the airline avoids is fuel; otherwise, it must still pay ownership costs for aircraft and ground equipment, maintenance costs and overhead and most crew costs. Extended storms and other sources of irregular operations are clear reminders of the industry’s operational and financial vulnerability to factors outside its control.”
Bob Mann, an independent airline analyst and consultant who is principal of R.W. Mann & Co. Inc. in Port Washington, N.Y., said that two-thirds of costs — fuel and labor — are short-term variable costs, but that fixed charges are “unfortunately incurred.” Airlines just typically absorb those costs.
“I am not aware of any airline that has considered taking out business interruption insurance for weather-related disruptions; it is simply a part of the business,” Mann said.
Chuck Cederroth, managing director at Aon Risk Solutions’ aviation practice, said carriers would probably not want to insure airlines against cancellations because airlines have control over whether a flight will be canceled, particularly if they don’t want to risk being fined up to $27,500 for each passenger by the Federal Aviation Administration when passengers are stuck on a tarmac for hours.
“How could an insurance product work when the insured is the one who controls the trigger?” Cederroth asked. “I think it would be a product that insurance companies would probably have a hard time providing.”
But Brad Meinhardt, U.S. aviation practice leader, for Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., said now may be the best time for airlines — and insurance carriers — to think about crafting a specialized insurance program to cover fluke years like this one.
“I would be stunned if this subject hasn’t made its way up into the C-suites of major and mid-sized airlines,” Meinhardt said. “When these events happen, people tend to look over their shoulder and ask if there is a solution for such events.”
Airlines often hedge losses from unknown variables such as varying fuel costs or interest rate fluctuations using derivatives, but those tools may not be enough for severe winters such as this year’s, he said. While products like business interruption insurance may not be used for airlines, they could look at weather-related insurance products that have very specific triggers.
For example, airlines could designate a period of time for such a “tough winter policy,” say from the period of November to March, in which they can manage cancellations due to 10 days of heavy snowfall, Meinhardt said. That amount could be designated their retention in such a policy, and anything in excess of the designated snowfall days could be a defined benefit that a carrier could pay if the policy is triggered. Possibly, the trigger would be inches of snowfall. “Custom solutions are the idea,” he said.
“Airlines are not likely buying any of these types of products now, but I think there’s probably some thinking along those lines right now as many might have to take losses as write-downs on their quarterly earnings and hope this doesn’t happen again,” he said. “There probably needs to be one airline making a trailblazing action on an insurance or derivative product — something that gets people talking about how to hedge against those losses in the future.”
To Better Control Total Workers Comp Costs, Manage Physical Medicine
Soaring drug prices get all the attention in the workers comp space. Meanwhile, another threat has flown under the radar.
More than 50 percent of lost time workers compensation claims involve physical medicine — an umbrella term encompassing physical therapy, occupational therapy, work conditioning, work hardening and functional capacity evaluation.
Spending on physical medicine accounts for 20 to 30 percent of total workers compensation medical costs, a percentage set only to increase in the coming years. Despite the rapid growth of this expense, very few employers are engaged in discussions around how best to manage it.
“Now is the time to take a look at physical medicine and think about how it impacts total cost of risk,” said Frank Radack, Vice President & Manager, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Commercial Insurance – Claims Managed Care. “Employers should investigate comprehensive solutions to keep costs manageable and to deliver quality, evidence-based care to injured employees.”
Liberty Mutual’s Frank Radack defines physical medicine and why it is so important in managing total workers compensation costs.
Upswings in both pure cost and utilization of physical medicine are driving the spending surge. State fee schedule changes are largely responsible for increases in cost. California, for example, has increased the cost of physical medicine services by 38 percent over the past two years, and will increase it a total of 64 percent by the end of 2017. North Carolina changed its approach to its fee schedule effective June 1, 2015, resulting in an almost 45 percent increase in the cost of the average physical therapy visit.
Increased utilization compounds rising prices. Low severity claims like soft tissue injuries typically involve physical therapy, especially when co-morbid conditions threaten to slow down recovery.
“When co-morbids are present, like obesity, more conditioning is necessary for recovery from injury,” Radack said. “With people staying in the workforce longer, we see these claims more often because these types of injuries and co-morbid conditions become more common as people age.”
De-emphasis on surgery also bolsters physical therapy prescribing as patients seek less invasive treatments that might enable a faster return to work, even in a light or transitional duty role. Sometimes, patients with a minor injury might seek out physical therapy on their own as a precaution after an injury or under the mistaken belief it will hasten recovery, even if evidence-based guidelines don’t call for it in every treatment plan.
“Now is the time to take a look at physical medicine and think about how it impacts total cost of risk. Employers should investigate comprehensive solutions to keep costs manageable and to deliver quality, evidence-based care to injured employees.”
–Frank Radack, Vice President & Manager, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Commercial Insurance – Claims Managed Care
“Without proper claims management procedures, some physicians might be inclined to prescribe physical therapy as a palliative measure, even when it doesn’t provide much benefit to the patient,” Radack said.
Brokers and buyers may not be able to do much about fee schedule changes, but they can partner with an insurer that better manages utilization through a multi-faceted claims system, qualified network vendors, data analytics, and peer interventions.
The keys to better managing the soaring cost of physical medicine.
“There is an opportunity to move physical medicine spending into network solutions and partnerships,” Radack said. A strong, collaborative network is key to maintaining direction over treatment decisions.
Liberty Mutual uses a proprietary data analytics program to study its providers’ prescribing and referral patterns and their outcomes. It then builds a network of point-of-entry general practitioners with a proven track record of optimal outcomes.
“The treating physician is a gatekeeper to other services, so it’s important to start there in terms of establishing a plan and making sure evidence based guidelines are followed,” Radack said.
Radack and his team use similar data analysis and partnerships to deploy networks pertaining only to physical medicine, so it can identify physical therapists who understand the occupational space and are focused on effective Return-to-Work (RTW). A provider who doesn’t understand RTW, or even know that the employer of an injured worker has a modified RTW program, may over-utilize PT. Getting employees with soft tissue injuries back into the work place is critical for delivering the best possible medical outcome and a timely recovery.
These therapists know the value of adjusting a treatment plan based on a patient’s progress, which often cuts unnecessary appointments and therapies.
“Our data analytics program is built internally by people who are aligned with the claims organization,” Radack said. “These insights drive our ability to shape networks and direct injured workers to providers with proven outcomes.”
Peer-to-peer interventions also play a big role in adjusting provider behavior and ensuring adherence to evidence-based guidelines. Liberty Mutual’s in house regional medical directors can bring their expertise to bear on challenging claims and discuss how to redirect treatment to meet these guidelines. Liberty Mutual also partners with experts to build networks of physical medicine and physical therapy providers who deliver quality outcomes cost-effectively and to asses a patient’s progress, working with providers to identify and resolve treatment issues.
Sharing information and measuring performance in these settings helps to change the environment around physical medical care. For example, interventions that steer physical therapists back to established, evidence-based medical treatment guidelines often reduce the use of passive therapy treatments, like hot and cold packs, which are not as effective and can slow down recovery.
“Active therapies that get people moving often help them get them back to work faster and at a lower cost,” Radack said. Utilization review also helps to identify unnecessary treatments and signals the insurer to communicate evidenced-based expectations with the therapist or prescribing physician.
Solutions in Action
Physical therapy offers great value in spite of rising prices — but only if it’s managed carefully.
An example of the benefits of managing physical medicine.
Take for example the case of a worker with a shoulder injury. In an unmanaged situation, a physical therapist may prescribe 12 appointments, and the injured worker will go through all 12 sessions with no pre-approval of the treatment plan and no interim checkup.
In a managed situation, the physical therapist may only prescribe eight sessions, because she understands the benefits of a faster return to work and sees that guidelines don’t dictate a full 12 sessions for this injury. Halfway through the eight sessions, she checks in on the patient’s progress and determines that only two more sessions are necessary given the recovery and the medical guidelines; and so adjusts the treatment plan to a total of six sessions.
In this scenario, managed care saves the cost of six sessions over the unmanaged situation, and the employee gets back to work faster with a healthy shoulder.
Ultimately, workers comp buyers can achieve cost savings by making treatment decisions that optimize patient outcomes, rather than cut pure cost. To achieve that, every player — point-of-entry physicians, physical therapists, medical directors, claims managers and patients — need to shoot for the common goal of shortening recovery time by following evidence-based medical guidelines.
“When medical experts and network vendors work in concert with each other, along with data analytics and research to back them up, we can drive down utilization while improving outcomes,” Radack said. “All of these working parts together are the solution to managing physical medicine costs.”
To learn more about Liberty Mutual’s Workers Compensation solutions, visit https://www.libertymutualgroup.com/business-insurance/business-insurance-coverages/workers-compensation
This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Liberty Mutual Insurance. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.