Retiring a Defined Benefit Pension Plan
August 01, 2006
According to a 2005 report of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC, the agency that administers the federal insurance program for DB plans), more than 2700 DB plans ' nearly 10% of all PBGC-insured plans ' were frozen as of 2003, and more than 165,000 DB plans were terminated between 1975 and 2004. This same period has seen a rise in popularity of defined contribution (DC) and other individual account plans (IAPs), such as 401(k) plans. This article explores the thinking that has led many employers to freeze and/or terminate their DB plans as a means of managing the risk/reward attributes of their tax-qualified deferred compensation programs, as well as some special considerations for law firm financial managers.
Executive Compensation: It's Hot and About to Get Hotter
August 01, 2006
With the business community eagerly anticipating more reports recommending SOX ' 404 relief for smaller companies, executive compensation issues seem far removed, except for the occasional (or not so occasional) headline. Don't be lulled, however, into a false sense of security. Executive compensation is about to take center stage as THE latest 'corporate governance' topic.
What Every U.S. Employer Should Know About Workplace Privacy
August 01, 2006
Through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Congress called on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promulgate regulations that would help ensure the privacy and security of health information. The Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (the Privacy Rule) and the Security Standards (the Security Rule) promulgated pursuant to HIPAA apply to 'covered entities' and limit the ability of such entities to use or disclose protected health information (PHI). The Privacy Rule defines a 'covered entity' as a health plan, health care clearinghouse, or health care provider who transmits health information in electronic form in connection with certain specified transactions. While the Privacy Rule and the Security Rule do not directly apply to employers, the requirements of these rules do apply to ERISA-covered 'group health plans' that are sponsored by many employers.
Coverage Disputes Involving Multiple Insureds or Claimants
July 31, 2006
Coverage disputes may become more complicated when multiple co-insureds or claimants assert rights to coverage under the same finite set of policy limits. For instance, some policyholders have argued that when co-insureds are seeking coverage under the same policy, the insurer must reserve a portion of the available policy limits for each insured so as to ratably distribute the available funds ' even while presently pending claims remain outstanding against one of those insureds. If this were correct, however, the insurer would be placed in an untenable position. If the insurer is required to forego the reasonable settlement of presently pending claims in order to preserve shared limits for co-insureds, the insured facing outstanding claims could argue that the insurer violated its good faith duty to settle on its behalf when the opportunity arose. On the other hand, other co-insureds might later argue that the insurer violated the duty of good faith by failing to preserve adequate limits for future claims ' leaving the insurer in what is essentially a no-win situation.
Case Briefs
July 31, 2006
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Occurrence Limits Under Multi-Year Policies: NJ Courts Are Changing Their Approach
July 31, 2006
In complex coverage cases involving 'long-tail' claims (such as asbestos bodily injury claims or property damage claims related to environmental pollution), decades of insurance policies can be put at issue. In many states, the policyholder's losses will be spread across the years in which the injury or property damage occurred on a proportionate basis, typically referred to as 'time on the risk' or pro rata allocation. <i>E.g., Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.</i>, 826 A.2d 107, 116 (Conn. 2003); <i>Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.</i>, 931 P.2d 127, 141 (Utah 1997); <i>Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc.</i>, 633 F.2d 1212, 1224-25 (6th Cir. 1980).
Courts Favor Insurers in Airport Cases Seeking Civil Authority Coverage After 9/11
July 31, 2006
On the morning of 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration reacted to the unfolding national disaster by issuing a 'ground stop order' of all aircraft departures regardless of destination. This ground stop order was lifted on Sept. 14, 2001. Due to the events of 9/11, numerous policyholders sought coverage under first-party property policies for coverage of their business interruption losses related to operations at the country's airports. The policyholders claimed that the ground stop order or other governmental orders closed the airports and gave rise to coverage under their policies' Civil Authority provision. Based on varying policy language, insurers resisted these claims on several grounds, including that 1) the ground stop order did not bar access to the airports, 2) the ground stop order was not issued due to property damage, and 3) the ground stop order was not issued due to damage to the insured's property or to adjacent property.
News Briefs
July 31, 2006
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
