Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employers Liability Coverage: Exploring Coverage for Employee Tort Claims Alleging That Injury Was 'Substantially Certain'
When an employee is injured on the job, the claim is usually handled through the Workers' Compensation system. Indeed, it is relatively rare for a worker, even one who has been seriously injured, to sue his or her employer in tort because of the 'exclusive remedy' feature of most Workers' Compensation Acts. That feature, also known as the 'Workers' Compensation bar,' directs all such claims to the compensation system unless an enumerated exception applies. Nonetheless, because there are such exceptions, employers frequently purchase 'Workers' Compensation/Employers Liability' ('WC/EL') policies, which provide insurance not only for claims brought through Workers' Compensation but also for claims brought in the civil court system.
This article addresses a recurring issue under the Employers Liability coverage of WC/EL policies, namely, whether the insurer is obligated to defend and, if necessary, indemnify the policyholder/employer when an injured employee (or the estate of an employee killed on the job) sues the employer alleging that the exclusive remedy provision does not apply because the employer acted knowing that injury to the employee was 'substantially certain.' The issue has been litigated for years, and was addressed anew as recently as early December, when the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down unanimous decisions in two cases, Charles Beseler Co. v. O'Gorman & Young, Inc., No. A-75-05, 2006 N.J. LEXIS 1658 (Dec. 4, 2006), and New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. Delta Plastics Corp., No. A-87-05, 2006 N.J. LEXIS 1659 (Dec. 4, 2006). The weight of authority (including the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decisions) and the better reasoning favor a finding of coverage.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.