Monday, December 24, 2007

Happy Holidays





As we close out another year, the entire team at Sabal Insurance Group would like to offer its heartfelt thanks to our customers, for making 2007 a wonderful year. Even in this rapidly changing market, we experienced tremendous growth thanks to YOU!

We have big plans for 2008 and we'll be sharing exciting improvements in the upcoming months. Stay tuned for more information!

Thank you again for entrusting your business with us. Warmest thoughts and b
est wishes for a wonderful holiday season and for a very happy new year!

Friday, December 21, 2007

House Passes Seven-Year Extension Of Terror-Insurance Program

Publication Date: 12/18/2007
Source: Dow Jones News Service (DJNS, "Broad Tape")


By Siobhan Hughes
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--U.S. House lawmakers on Tuesday voted to extend a federal terrorism risk-insurance program for seven years, bowing to Senate lawmakers who wanted to limit the length and scope of the program.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the legislation by 360-53; the program was set to expire on Dec. 31. The Senate last month passed a seven-year extension, and the White House has said that it wouldn't oppose the Senate version.

Congress enacted the law after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks when businesses ran into trouble insuring against terrorism-related losses. The goal was to provide a temporary federal backstop until a private market developed. But major insurers including American International Group Inc. (AIG) and Travelers Cos. (TRV), lobbied Congress to keep it going, winning a two-year extension in 2005 after arguing the private market lacked capacity to cover for losses from terror attacks.

House and Senate lawmakers have been at loggerheads over the program for months, with Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., especially opposed to extending the program for too long. After the House passed a 15-year extension and expanded the program in several ways, the Senate moved its own bill and then all but refused to negotiate with House counterparts. The House was left with little choice but to accept the Senate's version.

"Today, we're faced with a very difficult reality: We can either accept the Senate's shell of a bill and ensure that our nation's economy is somewhat protected against terrorist attacks, or we could let the program expire altogether," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. "We must do the responsible thing."

It was the third time this year that the House has voted to extend the terrorism risk-insurance program. In September, the chamber passed a 15-year extension of the program that would have expanded the program to cover group life and other lines of coverage. Later, the House passed a compromise seven-year extension.

But the Senate went ahead with its own seven-year extension that stripped out just about every House attempt to expand the program, such as covering group life and requiring insurers to offer insurance for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks. The House had also tried to lower the level for federal government involvement to $50 million, but the Senate maintained the $100 million threshold.

-By Siobhan Hughes, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6654; siobhan.hughes@dowjones.com

(Michael Crittenden contributed to this report.)

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

Monday, December 10, 2007

Employment Practices Liability Risk Control ALERT: Are Managers Losing the Ability To Manage?

By: JoAnn Veltrup Diaz, Esquire and Lawrence B. Berg, Esquire1

In today's work environment, a simple change of an employee's work assignment and duties can, under certain circumstances,subject an employer to liability. Specifically, when an employee has voiced an objection or engaged in what may be considered "protected activity" such as a complaining of discrimination, harassment or wrongdoing of the employer, a simple change in that person's work assignment or duties may be considered an adverse action and could be grounds for a suit. The mere threat of this type of risk can have a chilling effect on the ability to effectively manage staff and respond to changing business environments.

In the 2006 decision of Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Co. v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405, the Supreme Court of theUnited States departed from years of established law and substantially broadened the circumstances under which an employeecan successfully claim he or she was subjected to an "adverse action" and seek damages. Prior to the Burlington Northern decision, the various Circuit Courts employed differing standards ranging from the more stringent or "ultimate employmentdecision" standard that limited actionable retaliatory conduct to discreet acts, such as hiring, discharge, granting leave, promotion and compensation; to, at the other end of the spectrum, the least restrictive standard which had been adopted on the WestCoast and which only required an Employee to establish "adverse treatment." This was interpreted to include anything which was reasonably likely to deter others from engaging in protected activity.

In Burlington Northern, the employee claimed she was retaliated against after she filed an internal sexual harassment complaint against her supervisor. Following an investigation of her complaint, the employer disciplined the supervisor and re-assigned the employee to another position but one that was within the same classification and which had the same pay and benefits. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff alleged that she suffered an adverse employment action since she perceived the new duties as less desirable. The case proceeded to trial and a jury agreed and awarded her damages. After a reversal in the appellate courts, and a ruling that the Employer's transfer of the employee to a different duty within the same classification and with the same salary, title and seniority was not an adverse employment action sufficient to sustain a Title VII retaliation claim, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the differences in how the Circuits were treating the "adverse action" requirement.

In rejecting arguments by the employer that the employee's pay and benefits did not change and thus a duty change was not an "adverse employment action", the Supreme Court recognized that all positions include some duties which are less desirable or more onerous than others, and based on that recognition, held that a transfer to another position or duties even within the same job description could constitute an adverse employment action. The Court concluded that the test to be used was whether the transfer might dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Since the Burlington Northern decision, the Third Circuit has addressed issues concerning what constitutes an adverse action in the context of employment retaliation claims and continues to carve out situations that stress the need for employers to be cautious in their actions. In March of 2007, the Third Circuit decided a retaliation claim and, relying on Burlington Northern, held that an employer's failure to select an employee for a career management program may be considered a "materially adverse" action and subject the employer to liability.2 In that case, the failure to select the employee for the management program occurred after that employee complained of harassment by a manager at work. The Court opined that denial of participation in the program, which was perceived to be helpful toward career advancement, was sufficient to dissuade other employees from reporting claims of discrimination.

In another decision, the Court concluded that a "pattern of antagonism" that included the employer's skepticism of an employee's complaint and the employee's name being blacked off on a work schedule after that employee complained of harassment was sufficient under the Supreme Court's broad definition of "adverse action" to withstand summary judgment.

The Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern and subsequent court decisions should raise concern for employers. The subjective nature of the standard lends itself to manipulation and abuse. Now, any change of duties creates the possibility that retaliation will be claimed. With the Court's relaxed standard and expansion of actions that may subject an employer to liability,
the need for careful review of employment decisions is crucial. Employers need to take a look at the big picture in employee management and consider the perception of a decision along with the reality.

1 Jo Ann and Larry are with the Employment Practices Group of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman and Goggin, a Regional Defense Litigation Law Firm with offices in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio and Florida. JoAnn can be reached at (856) 414-6016 or jvdiaz@MDWCG.com; and Larry can be reached at (856) 414-6031 or lbberg@MDWCG.com.

2 Hare v. Potter, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6731 (U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Cir. 3/21/2007)

Friday, December 7, 2007

Building Material Costs Escalate - Is your Building Underinsured?

Industry studies have indicated that more than 70 percent of commercial properties are at least 40 percent underinsured. Many property policies are renewed on an "as is" basis. Proper valuation is critical in protecting a firm’s financial health in the event of loss.

A report from The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) predicts that by the end of the year there will be a 6-8% increase in cost of construction materials. A main cause for this rise is the increase in costs to transport the material, considering that construction companies largely haul their material by road. Higher gasoline prices yield higher costs of materials and products, because companies affected have to make up for higher costs of transporting and producing.

Turner Construction's Building Cost Index registered 863 in the third quarter, a 1.9 percent increase from the second quarter and 8.8 percent increase from a year ago. Turner’s Building Cost Index is determined by the following factors considered on a nationwide basis: labor rates and productivity, material prices and the competitive competition of the marketplace.

Given the dramatic inflation in construction materials and labor, it is recommended that you consult your Sabal Insurance Representative to discuss the proper limit of insurance necessary to cover reconstruction expenses in the event of a loss.

Monday, December 3, 2007

The Senior's Choice Partners With Sabal for Members’ Insurance Needs


The Senior's Choice organization, a leading home care membership-based business operating nationally, is pleased to announce the selection of Sabal Insurance Group, Inc. of Ft Lauderdale, Florida as the recommended insurance and risk management affiliate for its members.

Due to the high volume of Senior's Choice members across the country, Sabal has negotiated discounts and coverage enhancements on professional/general liability, property, and other valuable insurance coverages. Senior's Choice members can now save time and money by having a dedicated home care team of specialists handling the insurance and risk management while they grow their respective operations.

Cristina Iglesias, the Director of Sabal’s healthcare division, describes the Sabal advantage: “Just as Senior's Choice has developed a ‘winning model’ for home care, Sabal has the same winning formula for insuring Senior's Choice agencies across the country. Sabal specializes in home care, hospice and nursing pools and can offer the broadest coverage for the lowest premiums.”

With decades of experience in the healthcare insurance market, Sabal has the expertise, the reliable reputation and the high degree of customer service that Senior's Choice members demand and deserve. This new relationship is the culmination of a great deal of work and due diligence by Senior's Choice management and both parties are excited at the growth prospects and the potential of helping members get even more value from the Senior's Choice affiliation.

To get a quote on coverage, please contact Cristina Iglesias at Sabal Insurance Group at (800) 716 9948 extension 203 or by email at ciglesias@sabalinsurance.com