Electricity is one of the leading causes of death for tree-care workers. Tree branches can sometimes be close to power lines, and when trees are uprooted by powerful storms, there is a chance they can take power lines and transformers down with them. Live power lines can pose serious hazards if not fixed properly. Tree-care workers need to know how to stay safe in such conditions.
| Electricity is one of the leading causes of death in the tree-care industry. Workers need to know how to keep themselves and the public safe when electricity poses risks at the worksite |
Be Prepared
- If there is a power line present, never assume that it is safe to touch.
- Assess the worksite for fall and falling object hazards.
- Have an emergency plan.
- Wear properly insulated footwear and other personal protective equipment in case electricity travels through the ground unexpectedly.
- Consider asking the utility company to de-energize nearby power lines.
Follow Safe Work Practices
- Maintain a distance of at least 10 feet from overhead lines, and more than 10 feet if the voltage to ground is over 50 kilovolts.
- Avoid direct and indirect contact with an energized conductor, such as a power line or a tool touching a power line.
- Stand away from grounding elements, as power can travel through the ground.
Wear the Right Gear
- Wear proper gloves and shoes for hazards present wherever tree work is being performed.
- When electrical hazards are present, use rope that provides appropriate insulation and is free of moisture and contaminants.
Be Alert
- Assume that all power lines are energized at all times.
- Anticipate when limbs might fall onto power sources.
- It only takes a moment for a fatality to occur. Always stay alert and be prepared for potential hazards.
Read more
New Study Demonstrates the Dangers of Talking While Driving
It’s commonly known that smartphones, entertainment systems and other electronics can be a dangerous distraction to drivers. However, a new study from the University of Iowa found that simple conversations can also cause unsafe driving conditions.
The study used eye tracking equipment to analyze where subjects were looking and how long it took them to focus on a new object. Some subjects were also asked true or false questions at the same time in order to simulate a simple conversation. Data collected from the study found that subjects who answered questions took twice as long to focus on a new object than those who were asked no questions.
Although engaging in conversation seems simple, it involves a number of complex tasks that the brain must handle simultaneously. Even if the topic of conversation is straightforward, the brain has to absorb information, overlay what a person already knows and prepare to a construct a reply. And, although this process is done extremely quickly, it can also slow down reaction times and lead to a dangerous accident on the road.
The best way to keep your employees safe while driving is to encourage them to eliminate or turn off all potential distractions, including their cellphones and any hands-free accessories they may use to make a call. You can also consider including language about safe driving practices in your workplace safety policies.
Preventing Workplace Violence
As reports of shootings and other violent incidents become more common, workplace violence is a topic than no business can ignore. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, workplace homicides rose 2 percent in 2015, the latest year for which data is available. Additionally, the number of workplace shootings increased by 15 percent.
The best way to address potential acts of violence at your business is to be prepared to act before, during and after an act of violence occurs. Here are some programs you can use to ensure the safety of your employees and customers:
- Pre-employment screenings-Background checks can help identify candidates who have violent histories.
- Security-Security systems can ensure that only employees have access to certain areas.
- Alternative dispute resolutions-Techniques like facilitation and mediation can help solve a conflict before it escalates.
- Threat assessment teams-A designated team can work with management to assess the potential for violence and develop an action plan.
Congress Considers Flood Insurance Reforms
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is one of the few ways to get insurance coverage for flood risks, and the program is set to expire later this year. However, Congress is currently examining a number of possible changes to the NFIP before it’s reauthorized.
One of the most important topics regarding the NFIP is its financial stability. The program is currently $24 billion in debt as a result of rising claims costs and severe weather events, and some lawmakers believe that the program needs substantial reforms in order to remain viable.
The following are some of the changes that are being considered to the NFIP:
- Making private flood insurance more available to consumers
- Limiting payments to properties that flood repeatedly
- Reducing taxpayer subsidies for flood insurance
- Creating financial incentives for flood mitigation
DOL Withdraws Joint Employment and Worker Classification Guidance
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently withdrew administrative interpretations regarding joint employment and the classification of workers as employees or independent contractors. These withdrawals can have significant consequences on legal protections for employees and eligibility for benefits.
- Worker classification-Employers will need to satisfy tests established by the courts-such as the economic realities test-when classifying workers.
- Joint employment-Joint employment can only be established when an employer has direct control over another employer’s workplace.
To learn more about what these withdrawals could mean for you, contact Scurich Insurance and ask to see our comprehensive compliance bulletins, “DOL Withdraws Joint Employer Guidance” and “DOL Withdraws Worker Classification Guidance.”
Read more
DHS Warns of Utilities Malware
Two cyber security firms have uncovered malicious software that they believe caused a Ukraine power outage last December. The software was recently uncovered by two cyber security firms—ESET, a Slovakian anti-virus software maker, and Dragos Inc., a U.S. critical-infrastructure security firm.
The two firms released details of the malware, which goes by two different names, Industroyer and Crash Override. They also issued alerts to governments and infrastructure operators to help them defend against the malware, warning that it could be easily modified to harm critical infrastructure operations around the globe.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) hasn’t seen any evidence to suggest that its critical infrastructure has been affected, but it will continue to investigate, as there is the possibility of more attacks using the same approach. In an alert posted on its website, the agency stated that “the tactics, techniques and procedures described as part of the Crash Override malware could be modified to target U.S. critical information networks and systems.”
In the same alert, the DHS posted a list of technical indicators that a system had been compromised by Crash Override and asked firms to contact the agency if malware was suspected.
Power firms are concerned that there could be more attacks, especially considering the malware could attack other types of infrastructure, such as transportation, water and gas providers.
The two companies do not yet know who masterminded the attack, although Ukraine blames Russia. Officials in Moscow have denied the claims.
Microsoft Warns of Cyber Attacks
Citing an elevated risk of cyber attacks, Microsoft has released several security updates during its June “Patch Tuesday” in an effort to protect against widespread hacking. A recent blog post by Adrienne Hall, General Manager of Microsoft’s Cyber Defense Operations Center, stated, “In reviewing the updates for this month, some vulnerabilities were identified that pose elevated risk of cyber attacks by government organizations, sometimes referred to as nation-state actors or other copycat organizations.”
WannaCry
In May 2017—after the WannaCry ransomware locked hundreds of thousands of machines around the world and demanded that victims paid a ransom in bitcoin—Microsoft was prompted to release updates for software that it no longer supports. This was an unexpected move that preceded more updates for old, outdated systems.
Microsoft’s motives for June’s most recent security updates are speculative, and it is unclear whether the company has been warned of another cyber attack using exploits similar to those of WannaCry. A Microsoft spokesperson stated that the decision to release the most recent updates is “an exception based on the current threat landscape and the potential impact to customers and their businesses.”
WannaCry Came from North Korea
According to British security officials, the May 2017 global ransomware attack that affected over 200,000 computer systems came from North Korea. The hackers are believed to be a hacking group known as Lazarus—the same group that targeted Sony Pictures in 2014.
In the wake of increasing tensions resulting from North Korea’s missile tests, the DHS and the FBI have issued an alert to businesses about another possible cyber attack led by North Korea, warning people to update old software
Recent Findings
British security officials have recently linked the North Korean government to the creation of WannaCry, based on tactics, techniques and targets. The ransomware was originally built around a hacking tool belonging to the National Security Agency and spread through a flaw in Windows.
The Importance of Performing Updates
WannaCry is believed to be a flawed attempt to raise revenue for the North Korean regime, considering the hackers have not yet cashed in the $140,000 in bitcoin they stole. That is likely because the transactions are easy to track. Despite the failed attempt, one of the reasons why WannaCry was so powerful was because many of the facilities attacked hadn’t updated their software to patch holes in security.
The most recent security update includes patches to its Windows XP, Windows Vista and Server 2003 products, which are all unsupported but still widely used. Microsoft suggests customers enable Windows Update if they haven’t already.
Target to Pay Settlement from 2013 Data Breach
Target has agreed to pay $18.5 million to settle claims made by 47 states and the District of Columbia as well as to resolve an investigation into the retailer’s massive data breach in 2013.
The investigation found that Target’s gateway server was accessed by cyber hackers through credentials stolen from a third-party vendor. As a result, data from up to 40 million credit and debit cards were stolen during the 2013 holiday season.
The total cost of the data breach was $202 million, according to Target. The state receiving the largest share of the settlement is California, which will receive more than $1.4 million.
Michigan Utility Company Loses Employees After Cyber Attack
A Lansing utility company is still recovering from a 2016 cyber attack that temporarily disabled its internal network and asked for a $25,000 ransom. According to officials, an employee unsuspectingly clicked on an infected email attachment, which shut down the company’s accounting and email systems.
Since the cyber attack, 14 employees have voluntarily left the company—13 of which were IT employees. The company is devoting its resources to minimize the odds of an attack and to quickly recover in the event it is hit again.
Read more
Softwood Lumber Prices Keep Climbing
As the lumber dispute between Canada and the United States continues, uncertainty over the softwood lumber supply has increased prices by more than 12 percent since January, according to a National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) analysis. Although the Trump administration is eager for a quick deal to end the dispute, the Canadian government doesn’t see an agreement any time in the near future.
In April, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced an average preliminary 20 percent import tax on Canadian softwood lumber. That could increase to 30 percent after a U.S. decision on new anti-dumping penalties, according to RBC Capital Markets.
The United States imports one-third of its lumber supplies, and more than 95 percent of that comes from Canada, according to the NAHB.
Trump Signs Apprenticeship Order
In an effort to fill some of the 6 million open jobs in the United States, President Donald Trump signed an executive order providing more money for private companies to design apprenticeship programs. The order nearly doubles the $200 million in taxpayer money spent on learn-and-earn programs under a grant system called ApprenticeshipUSA. To avoid using federal money to fund the order, Trump is directing a government review, hoping to streamline over 40 workforce programs across 13 agencies.
There are about 500,000 apprenticeship positions in the country, representing less than 1 percent of the entire U.S. workforce. The executive order addresses the nation’s “skills gap” that has left millions of open jobs unfilled. Apprenticeships would give students a way to learn skills without facing the debt associated with attending four-year colleges.
Critics are concerned about limited government oversight, since Trump’s order does not require all apprenticeships to be registered, and the Labor Department would review the apprenticeships under broader standards. They are also concerned about the oversight of apprenticeship programs that operate under private companies’ control.
Heat App Updated in Time for Summer
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and OSHA have recently redesigned their Heat Safety Tool mobile app. The free app provides information on what precautions outdoor workers should take to stay safe in hot and humid conditions.
The updated app uses a cellphone’s geolocation capabilities to gather weather data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites. It can forecast the hourly heat index and determine whether the user’s current risk level is minimal, low, moderate, high or extreme. The information can help employers adjust work schedules and workloads.
According to OSHA, more than 65,000 people seek medical attention each year for extreme heat exposure.
Read more
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires applicable large employers (ALEs) to offer affordable, minimum value health coverage to their full-time employees in order to avoid possible penalties. Because this employer mandate has been criticized as burdensome for employers and an impediment to business growth, it seems likely that its repeal will be part of any Republican plan to repeal and replace the ACA.
If the employer mandate is repealed, many ALEs will likely want to modify their plan designs to go back to pre-ACA eligibility rules (for example, requiring employees to have a 40-hour per week work schedule to be eligible for benefits). Employers may also consider increasing the amount that employees are required to contribute for group health plan coverage.
When making plan design changes, employers should review their compliance obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the ACA mandates that may remain intact
EMPLOYER MANDATE RULES
Under the ACA’s employer mandate provisions, ALEs that do not offer affordable, minimum value health coverage to their full-time employees may be subject to penalties if any full-time employee receives a subsidy for health coverage through an Exchange.
These employer mandate provisions, which are also known as the “employer shared responsibility” or “pay or play” rules, only apply to ALEs, which are employers with, on average, at least 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees (FTEs), during the preceding calendar year.
| The employer mandate rules took effect for most ALEs beginning on Jan. 1, 2015. However, medium-sized ALEs (those with fewer than 100 full-time and FTE employees in 2014) generally had an additional year, until 2016, to comply with the employer mandate rules, if they satisfied specific criteria to qualify for this delay.
|
For purposes of the ACA’s employer mandate, a full-time employee means an employee who works an average of 30 or more hours per week.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provided ALEs with two methods to determine whether employees are full time under the employer shared responsibility rules—the monthly measurement method and the look-back measurement method.
| Monthly Measurement Method |
Under this method, an employee’s full-time status for a calendar month is determined based on hours of service for that month. |
| Look-back Measurement Method |
The look-back measurement method involves:
- A measurement period for counting hours of service;
- An optional administrative period that allows time for enrollment and disenrollment; and
- A stability period during which coverage is provided if the employee averages full-time hours during the prior measurement period.
If an employee had, on average, at least 30 hours of service per week during the measurement period, the ALE must treat the employee as a full-time employee for the stability period. This rule applies regardless of the employee’s number of hours of service during the stability period, as long as he or she remains an employee, unless a special rule applies.
|
To comply with the ACA’s employer mandate, many ALEs were required to expand their health plan’s eligibility criteria to include employees who work 30 or more hours per week. ALEs that use the look-back measurement method have also implemented complex systems for tracking and measuring employee hours in order to identify the employees who must be offered coverage.
In addition, to satisfy the ACA’s affordability requirement (9.5 percent, as adjusted from year-to-year), ALEs have analyzed their employees’ premium contribution rates and made adjustments when necessary.
CURRENT STATUS OF EMPLOYER MANDATE
At this time, the ACA, including its employer mandate rules, remains intact as a federal law. Proposed legislation to repeal and replace the ACA is currently making its way through the federal legislative process. The current bill that is being considered by Congress, which is referred to as the American Health Care Act (AHCA), would reduce the penalties for failing to comply with the ACA’s employer mandate to zero beginning in 2016. This change would effectively repeal the ACA’s employer mandate (although it would technically still exist).
| ACA Reporting: The AHCA would not repeal the ACA’s employer reporting requirements under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Sections 6055 and 6056. Under these tax provisions, ALEs are required to report on full-time employee offers of coverage and employers with self-insured health plans must report on minimum essential coverage. Under the AHCA, employers would still be obligated to report and subject to penalties for failing to report until the proposed AHCA tax credit system is effective in 2020. Starting in 2020, employers would report offers of coverage on employees’ Forms W-2. |
The AHCA’s future is still uncertain. The bill has been amended several times and will likely be subject to additional revisions in the near future. Since the bill has not been signed into law, the ACA’s employer mandate, and its penalty provisions, remain intact. However, because the employer mandate has been criticized as burdensome for employers and an impediment to business growth, it seems likely that its repeal will be part of any Republican plan to repeal and replace the ACA.
REPEAL’S IMPACT ON EMPLOYERS
If the ACA’s employer mandate is repealed, ALEs will no longer be required to provide affordable, minimum value coverage to their full-time employees in order to avoid possible penalties. Many ALEs will likely want to modify their plan designs to go back to pre-ACA eligibility rules. Possible modifications that ALEs may consider include:
- Changing health plan eligibility rules so that only employees who have a full-time work schedule (for example, 40 hours per week) are eligible for coverage;
- Eliminating health plan coverage for employees who are part time, seasonal or temporary;
- No longer using the monthly or look-back measurement method to track employee hours and make eligibility determinations; and
- Increasing the amount that employees who elect group health plan coverage are required to contribute.
| Effective Date of AHCA Repeal: The AHCA would effectively nullify the employer mandate by eliminating potential penalties effective Jan. 1, 2016. Because the employer mandate took effect for some employers in 2015, penalties could technically still apply for the 2015 calendar year, although it is unclear whether the IRS would pursue these penalties under the Trump administration. Also, an audit report released by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reveals that, due to system and operational problems, the IRS has been unable to identify the employers that are potentially subject to an employer mandate penalty or to assess any penalties. |
It is difficult to predict whether federal agencies, such as the IRS and DOL, will issue guidance in the event the ACA’s employer mandate is repealed in order to help ALEs work through the changes. Even if federal agencies plan on issuing implementation guidance, it may take a while before it is available. In the meantime, ALEs will likely want to make changes to their health plans. In general, ALEs that are considering changes to their health plan’s design and administration should consider their compliance obligations under ERISA and the ACA mandates that may remain intact.
ERISA Rules
Making Plan Changes
In general, under ERISA, employers may amend, or make changes to, their health plans at any time, provided those changes do not violate other federal laws. An employer’s decisions about plan design, including who is eligible for coverage, are generally viewed as “settlor” functions that are not subject to ERISA’s rules that require fiduciaries to act solely in the interests of plan participants or beneficiaries. Thus, employers may make decisions about plan design based on their business interests, even if those decisions negatively impact plan participants or beneficiaries.
Although most employers implement plan design changes at the start of the plan year, an employer may change the terms of its health plan during the plan year. Employers with insured plans should review their insurance documents and consult with their carriers, if necessary, before making mid-year plan design changes. The following are two types of mid-plan year design changes that an ALE may consider making if the employer mandate is repealed:
Change the plan’s eligibility rules to raise the number of hours needed to be a full-time employee who is eligible for plan coverage. Changing the plan’s eligibility rules is not a “qualifying event” for COBRA purposes, so individuals who would lose coverage because they are no longer eligible are not entitled to elect federal COBRA continuation coverage. These individuals would, however, be eligible for a special enrollment period under an ACA Exchange or another employer’s group health plan.
Increase the amount that employees are required to pay for coverage. If employees pay their health insurance premiums on a pre-tax basis, the Code Section 125 rules limit when they can change their elections during the plan year. Certain mid-year changes are permissible (for example, automatic increases or decreases to employees’ contributions for insignificant cost changes). Also, if the cost increases significantly during a plan year, the plan may allow participants to make an election change, including dropping coverage in certain situations.
| Compliance Concern—Vested Benefits: Unlike retirement plan benefits, welfare benefits (for example, group health plans) are not subject to ERISA’s vesting requirements. Because welfare benefits are not vested under ERISA, they can be amended or changed at any time, as a general rule. However, there are some circumstances when group health plan benefits may vest under the terms of the plan documents. The case law on this issue generally provides that, once a participant satisfies all of the plan’s conditions for receiving a benefit, those benefits cannot be reduced or eliminated for that participant. The application of this rule depends on the specific facts of each situation, including the terms of the plan document. Employers that are making changes to their eligibility rules, particularly mid-year changes, may want to consult with their legal counsel regarding any vested benefit concerns. |
Communicating Changes to Participants
Any changes that are made to plan design must be formally adopted by the plan sponsor as part of the health plan’s documentation. These changes also must be communicated to participants through either an updated summary plan description (SPD) or a summary of material modifications (SMM).
ERISA provides generous deadlines for communicating plan design changes to participants—the deadline is 210 days following the close of the plan year in which the amendment was adopted, except that notice of material reductions in benefits and services generally must be given no later than 60 days after the date of the adoption of the modification. However, to help avoid benefits disputes and possible litigation, employers should communicate changes to their health plans’ eligibility rules as soon as possible, and before the changes take effect, as a best practice.
In addition, federal courts have addressed what information an employer is required to provide to plan participants when it is considering whether to make a plan amendment. These cases often arise in the context of retirement plan benefits, but the same ERISA fiduciary principles would also apply to welfare plan benefits, such as group health plan coverage. In general, most courts have ruled that ERISA plan fiduciaries (that is, plan sponsors) have a duty to provide truthful information about potential plan amendments when participants ask about the possibility of plan changes.
Other ACA Reforms
When considering plan design changes, employers should remember that many ACA reforms will likely remain in place even if the employer mandate is repealed, including the following ACA reforms that impact plan eligibility.
| ACA Reform |
Description |
| Waiting Period Limits |
The ACA prohibits group health plans from applying any waiting period that exceeds 90 days. A “waiting period” is the period of time that must pass before coverage for an employee or dependent who is otherwise eligible to enroll in the plan becomes effective. This waiting period limit does not require an employer to offer coverage to any particular employee or class of employees, including part-time employees. It only prevents an otherwise eligible employee (or dependent) from having to wait more than 90 days before coverage under a group health plan becomes effective. |
| Dependent Coverage to Age 26 |
The ACA requires group health plans and health insurance issuers that provide dependent coverage to children on their parents’ plans to make coverage available until the adult child reaches age 26. This provision does not require plans and issuers to offer dependent coverage at all. It only requires plans that otherwise offer dependent coverage to make that coverage available until the adult child reaches age 26. |
| Prohibition on Rescissions |
The ACA prohibits group health plans and health insurance issuers from rescinding coverage for covered individuals, except in the case of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of a material fact. A “rescission” is a cancellation or discontinuance of coverage that has a retroactive effect (such as one that treats a policy as void from the time of enrollment). Thus, as a general rule, changes to a health plan’s eligibility rules should be effective on a prospective basis only. |
Read more
Ever since the first ride-sharing app debuted in 2011, they’ve experienced exponential growth in usage. In fact, in the cities where such apps have joined the market, taxi ridership has declined anywhere from 10 to 30 percent. However, while the popularity of ride-sharing apps is increasing, so is the host of risks associated with using them. Most of the companies are in the stages of infancy, and the situations they’re facing are in uncharted territory.
How the Apps Work
While they’re most commonly referred to as ride-sharing apps, any company that uses an online platform to connect passengers with drivers (using the driver’s own vehicle) is called a transportation network company (TNC). These companies each have their own unique differences, but they all operate under the same basic concept.
Through their smartphones, passengers are matched with available drivers via GPS. Most apps display the driver’s route and estimated time of arrival, in addition to the driver’s name, photo and vehicle information. The TNC gets a cut of the fare, typically between 20 to 25 percent, for each ride a driver completes.
The apps are convenient for passengers and for drivers looking to supplement their income. Still, they’re not without flaws. For example, it can be difficult to determine what regulations the TNC and its drivers need to follow, what insurance coverages apply to them and who is considered liable in the event of an accident.
When Insurance Kicks in
Since TNC drivers use their vehicles for both business and personal purposes, TNCs have to clarify when drivers are covered by different types of insurance.
When a driver is driving with the TNC app off, the driver is not accepting rides, so the driver’s personal auto insurance is the primary coverage. When the driver turns the app on, but has not yet accepted a ride, TNCs generally offer contingent liability coverage if the driver’s personal auto insurance does not offer protection. When a passenger is picked up, the TNC’s policy is the primary policy until the end of the ride.
State Involvement
Unlike taxis, which are regulated by the city and have to follow strict guidelines, TNCs haven’t had to adhere to the same strict regulations. This is beginning to change, as legal concerns have grown. Some states are enacting laws to set standards and insurance requirements for TNCs. Furthermore, cases that are currently in the courts will help shed light on who is to be held liable in ride-sharing accidents in the future.
Driver Risks
Some ride-share companies provide liability insurance for their drivers in excess of the driver’s personal liability coverage. However, this does not mean that the driver will always be covered.
Drivers also face the risk of being dropped by their insurance company if they’re found to be misleading them. Drivers need to be honest about what the primary use for the vehicle is when they obtain the policy. If a driver fails to indicate the intention to drive for commercial purposes, the insurer could not only deny claims, but also drop the driver from the policy. Some insurers have created hybrid policies that allow drivers to switch between personal and commercial coverage for that same reason.
Passenger Risks
When a passenger gets into a car arranged by a TNC, the passenger agrees to a host of terms and conditions by default. If the driver gets into an accident and the passenger is hurt, there is no guarantee that the driver’s insurance company, nor the TNC, will pay for damages. For example, the driver’s personal insurance company may say that he or she was driving for profit and, for that reason, it is not required to pay the medical bills. The passenger would need to take the driver to court for damages, which can be a costly and time-consuming process.
Safety is a concern for both the driver and for the passenger. A driver never knows the type of person about to get into the back seat. Likewise, a passenger only knows how reliable a driver is from what the TNC shares about the driver on its app.
However, no transportation service can guarantee safety, and the same concerns arise for people who take taxis. But if something happens to the passenger in a taxi, he or she may receive monetary compensation without having to go to court.
Tips for Passengers
Using a ride-sharing app is generally a safe and reliable method of transportation. Nonetheless, there are safety risks to consider. If your employees use ride-sharing apps when they travel, make sure they’re aware of the following safety tips:
-
- Share your trip details with someone. Some apps allow you to share your route and driver information.
- Before you get in the car, check that the driver’s photo, name and license plate match what’s listed on the app. Never enter a car with
a driver who claims to be with a TNC and offers you a ride.
- Never share any personal information that the driver does not need to complete the ride. This includes phone numbers, as TNCs typically anonymize their passengers’ phone numbers to protect their privacy.
- Always wear your seat belt. If the car you’re riding in doesn’t have one or appears to be unsafe, instruct your driver to cancel the ride. Be sure to report it to the TNC immediately.
While the TNC insurance landscape evolves to meet the safety needs of drivers and passengers, insurance companies are taking different approaches to claims. Consult with Scurich Insurance for information on new and changing regulations and to be sure you and your employees are always covered.
Read more
