COMP FUNDS FOR JOCKEYS
Editor's note: A story titled "Riding on the Edge," Risk & Insurance®, June 2005, page 20, explored the difficulty of setting up workers' compensation insurance funds for jockeys injured in horse racing.
This problem can be relatively quickly resolved by having each track post a $1 million bond/cash deposit toward a workers' comp policy that would be capped at $1 million for medical-related claims, and $1 million for disability coverage. The policy could be written in Bermuda, and each track could be "loss rated" so at the end of the year, they either pay more, or substantially less, depending on their loss ratio. Loss prevention services could be purchased separately, as well as "fronting" paper--if needed.
The trick is you need someone to spearhead the project that has good influence with the tracks involved. The need is certainly critical. You just need someone to "step up to the plate" and get the tracks lined up.
Eden Prairie, Minn.
APOLOGIST OR HYPERBOLIST?
As a longtime reader of the magazine, I've previously noted your admiration for Mr. Greenberg. When he wants to turn on the charm, he certainly can do so. But isn't the appellation "the greatest businessman of the second half of the twentieth century" in a column by Roger Crombie titled "Politics Triumph Over Justice," (Risk and Insurance®, June 2005, page 14), a little too warm? Are you a journalist or an apologist?
Let's face it: New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer probably has some hard evidence on AIG's former leaders. Spitzer knows that it is not in anybody's interest to blow up AIG, but criminal activity is a NO-NO, whether done by Enron, Arthur Andersen or by Hank Greenberg. I think Spitzer showed the AIG board what he had and their choice became obvious. If Greenberg were innocent, why did his hand-picked board not rise to his defense? I did observe that not one word of praise for Greenberg has passed the lips of anyone from AIG since this matter became public.
Greenberg deserves a trial, in that you are correct. I fervently hope you will get your wish. When this matter began to unravel in March, I suspect that Greenberg realized his own trial would produce an unfavorable result. I think that was why he deeded over to his wife almost $3 billion (yep, that's with a "b") in stock the day before he resigned.
Should he lose the impending civil suit, the judge should set aside the stock transfer and restore the purloined money to its rightful owners, namely, AIG's stockholders and its clients. That's how justice would be served.
Politics has not triumphed over justice just yet. In the long run, justice usually wins out. But after this trial is over, whatever its result, I don't think you will find many who will agree with your use of "greatest" in the same sentence as "Greenberg."
Kim Holtorff, CPCU
August 1, 2005
Copyright 2005© LRP Publications