The third consecutive year of drought plaguing California has encouraged unprecedented legislative and regulatory efforts to conserve what limited water the state has in its supply.
Come Tuesday, state officials from the State Water Resources Control Board will meet to discuss plans to impose emergency and temporary water conservation rules and regulations on outdoor water usage, an area state officials view as posing great potential for preserving the coveted liquid.
If passed, the new rules could include a $500 daily maximum fine for “water hogs” and violators, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Prohibited activities could include using water to wash down hard surfaces such a driveways and sidewalks; using landscaping water to the point where it would result in runoff, and the washing of vehicles unless the hose has a shut-off nozzle which controls water output.
Flushable toilets at popular state parks such as D.L. Bliss State Park at Lake Tahoe, the Hearst Castle Visitor’s Center, and Hearst San Simeon State Park have been shut down and replaced with portable toilets, according to the Associated Press. Additionally, showers at D.L. Bliss, San Simeon and Portola Redwoods State Parks have also been shut down in an effort to conserve water.
The AP notes that the officials have said the remaining water supply must be preserved for portable water at”This is not about aesthetics,” Gordon said, “as much as public health.” campsites and firefighting.
In San Francisco, city officials have raised concerns over the need to use water to wash off human fecal matter and urine from sidewalks. “We give very high priority to responding to the pee and poop requests,” said Public Works Department spokeswoman Rachel Gordon. This past year alone, San Francisco had 16,164 reports of streets and sidewalks in need of cleaning, the bulk of which concerned human waste, reports the Chronicle.
“This is not about aesthetics…as much as public health,” Gordon said, expressing that city officials have said they will continue giving priority to ensuring human waste is removed from their streets and seek necessary exemptions to use water to carry out the cleaning process.
Content provided by http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/07/13/California-Drought-Creates-Unprecedented-Temporary-Legislation-Fines
Read more
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act forbids an employer from firing a worker because he filed a complaint accusing the employer of violating the law. It doesn’t say whether the employee’s complaint must be in writing. What if the worker complains verbally but never makes a written complaint? Does the FSLA’s prohibition against firing him still apply? That was the question the U.S. Supreme Court faced in a case it decided in March 2011.
Kevin Kasten, following the instructions in the employee handbook, told his supervisor that the location of the company’s time clocks might be illegal because it prevented workers from getting credit for the time they spent putting on and removing their protective work gear. (The FSLA requires employers to pay workers for this time.) Getting no response from his supervisor, he also complained to human resources staff and told them that he was contemplating a lawsuit. Eventually, the employer fired him. He claimed that he was fired for complaining about the location of the time clock; the company said it was because he repeatedly failed to punch in and out on the clock despite several warnings.
Kasten sued the company for illegal retaliation. The trial and appellate courts, while accepting his version of what happened, ruled in favor of the employer. The FSLA, they said, requires employees to make written complaints to their employers about possible violations, but Kasten made all his complaints verbally. Kasten appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor.
Writing for the six-justice majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said, ” … (A)n interpretation that limited the provision’s coverage to written complaints would undermine the (FLSA’s) basic objectives … Why would Congress want to limit the enforcement scheme’s effectiveness by inhibiting use of the Act’s complaint procedure by those who would find it difficult to reduce their complaints to writing, particularly illiterate, less educated or overworked workers?” He also noted that the federal Department of Labor has for decades held that the law’s requirements include oral complaints, even going so far as to set up hotlines for employees to make complaints.
Moreover, Breyer pointed out that other laws, regulations and court decisions have used the word “filed” in connection with oral complaints. He particularly noted that court decisions at the time Congress enacted the FLSA used “filed” with oral complaints. “Filings may more often be made in writing … But we are interested in the filing of ‘any complaint.’ So even if the word ‘filed,’ considered alone, might suggest a narrow interpretation limited to writings, the phrase ‘any complaint’ suggests a broad interpretation that would include an oral complaint.”
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas disagreed (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case). In a dissenting opinion, Scalia argued that the FSLA forbids discrimination against a worker if that worker has filed a complaint with a government agency. He pointed out that every other use of the word “complaint” in the FSLA refers to an official filing with a government entity. Further, he said that the phrase “filing any complaint” appears alongside other activities that involve interaction with a government entity. Because Kasten complained only to his employer and not to a government agency, Scalia said, he was not protected by the law’s anti-retaliation provisions.
The dissents notwithstanding, employers should be aware that this decision protects workers from retaliation for making oral complaints to their employers. Businesses should create and implement policies stating that employees who make such complaints will not suffer retaliation. Since Employment Practices Liability insurance policies cover employers for retaliation claims, insurance companies will expect employers to take steps to make these claims less likely.
Content provided by Transformer Marketing.
Read more
When it comes to Workers Compensation claims, companies are looking constantly for ways to reduce claims and reduce costs.
Ascribing the cost of Workers Compensation claims to applicable internal departments can encourage supervisors and managers to pay more attention to training and safety programs and more carefully monitor injured employees returning to work. Some companies have even deducted the claim cost from the budget of the ascribed department instead of a general company fund as an additional incentive to curb Workers Compensation costs. Through implementing a few procedures that place Workers Compensation expenses directly on internal departments, employers have more control over prevention and injury management measures that can decrease the severity and frequency of workplace injury. The reduced claims and Workers Compensation premiums add up to a substantial amount of savings.
Safety goals can be met by communicating directly with all potential Workers Compensation employees. Use a claim and injury history to identify high-risk employee groups. Then, on a departmental level, discuss the injury management process with employees. Communication will improve as employees are given a chance to discuss how they feel the job could be performed with less risk of injury. It also gives the employer an opportunity to modify safety procedures or dangers in the work environment, such as faulty equipment or inadequate work protocols that are identified by employees.
A common problem related to workplace injuries is a lack of prompt reporting. Too often supervisors don’t appropriately acknowledge workplace accidents. The hope is that the incident will not result in time off of work or medical expenses. However, putting an initial injury off and not reporting it immediately often actually results in increased costs. Managers and supervisors need to know that they aren’t saving money when they don’t report injuries immediately. One study of more than 50,000 temporary total disability and permanent partial disability claims showed:
- Injuries reported one to two weeks following the incident were 18% more expensive than those reported within a week of the incident.
- Injuries reported three to four weeks after the incident were 30% more expensive than those reported within a week of the incident.
- Injuries reported after four weeks of the incident were 45% more expensive than those reported within a week of the incident.
Showing supervisors and managers statistics such as these will help to ensure timely injury reporting, especially if Workers Compensation costs will be coming out of the departmental budget. Although the goal is prevention of workplace injury, once an employee has been injured, the objective should turn to a timely and safe return to work. This can best be achieved if both employer and employee share a desire to obtain the most effective care, which will help to expedite recovery and a safe return to the job.
Since each department is faced with the claim cost coming out of their own budget, managers and supervisors can take a more active role in assisting injured employees returning to work. For example, instead of the usual claim adjuster or attorney contacting the injured employee, the company concern can be conveyed through the department head(s).
One last element is fraudulent claims. Although deliberate fraudulent claims are a rarity, they do exist. These fraudulent claims will be much more difficult to file when Workers Compensation costs are analyzed departmentally.
Accidents are going to happen. There simply isn’t a way to prevent all accidents and eliminate all claims. But, it is realistic to reduce the frequency and severity of workplace injuries by making the department responsible directly, whether by penalty or by reward, for a safe work environment.
Content provided by Transformer Marketing.
Read more
Pollution and environmental exposure risks on site and during transfer and disposal, such as toxic mold, the disposal of contaminated soil, and broken pipelines releasing toxic materials, are major construction concerns. When such incidents happen, a contractor’s reputation and livelihood can be irreversibly impacted.
Contractors Pollution Liability (CPL) is a type of insurance designed to protect contractors against the liability issues and financial losses that result from such environmental incidents. This insurance covers an array of environmental and pollution risks that are common to construction projects and is considered an appropriate coverage whether a firm is a trade contractor, such as those specializing in paving or HVAC; a general contractor; remediation contractor; or a contractor doing specialized work, such as tank installation or drilling. Contractors Pollution Liability insurance is available to cover areas like pollution incidences that result in bodily injury, third-party property damage, or remediation costs. Comprehensive policies can even be customized to provide pollution risk coverage to an entire project, which would include off-site transportation and all contractors involved in the project. Most Contractors Pollution Liability policies are written on a claims-made basis. This basis limits the insurer’s risk for unknown future liabilities since it means the policy only pays claims occurring and being filed during the period covered by the policy.
Clearly, Contractors Pollution Liability insurance can provide invaluable protection against environmental-related financial losses. That said, such a policy doesn’t prevent environmental incidents from occurring in the first place. To help prevent environmental incidences and protect hard-earned reputations, contractors should additionally adopt effective environmental risk management practices.
Creating an environmental risk profile will be one of the most important factors when taking steps toward risk management. This allows the firm to identify possible loss exposures and risk areas by thoroughly reviewing their administrative control documents. While some firms opt to conduct the profile in-house, many prefer the expertise and outsider’s perspective offered by a professional environmental consultant. In any event, documents related to the following areas should be reviewed during the development of an environmental risk profile:
- Contractors Pollution Liability policies
- Standard client agreements
- All mold prevention programs
- All environmental management programs
- Subcontractor’s environmental/mold management/prevention systems
- Language of subcontractor agreements
- Environmental data searches of job sites
- Hazard communication programs
- Quality assurance programs
- Internal health and safety programs, incident response protocols, and training protocols
- Trends, history, corrective measures, and employee communications related to environmental losses
- Environmental assessments for all leased and owned properties
Once the above documentation is assessed, the firm can identify strategies to reduce, if not eliminate, their exposures to environmental risks. Combining risk management with a Contractors Pollution Liability policy can help contractors reduce their risk, but still be covered in case the unexpected happens.
Contact our office for more information.
Content provided by Transformer Marketing.
Read more
As with any business, agricultural producers face risks of all kinds. However, the two most important risks facing farmers are yield and price. Fortunately, producers can buy insurance that reduces their exposure to low yields or low prices. Unavoidable risks protected by crop insurance include:
* Heat
* Hail
* Drought
* Frost
* Freeze
* Pests
* Excess Moisture
Since the 1930s, crop insurance has been available to agricultural producers in the United States. However, it was in the 1990s that the United States government promoted crop insurance by offering new products and more insurance premium subsidies.
The Risk Management Agency (RMA), is part of the United States Department of Agriculture is the governing authority for the crop insurance program and is in charge of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC). Private insurance companies contract with RMA to service crop insurance sold through independent insurance agencies. As with other disaster insurance programs, such as the National Flood Insurance Program, the private sector sells crop insurance, as the private sector is more efficient and rapidly adjudicates claims.
Crop insurance is unique in that companies selling Federal Crop insurance have a mandate to sell to any farmer, even those who are at high risk, at the same premium set in advance by the Federal government. Even farmers in high-risk drought areas such as California get policies without special underwriting standards or higher premium rates.
Without crop insurance, agricultural producers would have difficulty in achieving financial stability, a more difficult time in getting and repaying loans. Crop insurance allows agricultural producers to help forward marketing.
Essential facts about United States Crop Insurance
* Farmers share in the cost of the program
* Agricultural producers are personally responsible for managing risk
* Under the program, the producer gets tailored risk management solutions
* Quick indemnity pay outs
* The crop insurance program is dynamic; it can quickly adjust and self-correct
* Payments to producers never exceed actual insured losses
* Insurance is allowable collateral for loans
* Growers have no payment limits that cut protection from losses
* Insured growers have the benefit of private sector efficiency
* The program has the flexibility to meet World Trade Organization support limits
The United States crop insurance program provides so much more than just protection from risk. It plays a vital role in keeping the agriculture industry functioning.
Contact our office to make sure you are completely covered.
Content provided by Transformer Marketing.
Sources: http://www2.ca.uky.edu/cmspubsclass/files/cgwalters/Understanding%20Crop%20Insurance.pdf, http://www2.ca.uky.edu/cmspubsclass/files/cgwalters/Understanding%20Crop%20Insurance.pdf, http://www.cropinsuranceinamerica.org/just-the-facts/is-crop-insurance-like-other-forms-of-insurance/, https://www.cropinsurers.com/images/pdf/focus-on-congress/Importance_of_Crop_Insurance_in_the_US.pdf
Read more
If you rent out residential property, you face a variety of financial risks, everything from damage from fires and windstorms, through fines for building code violations, to a disgruntled tenant who sues you.
Landlord insurance to the rescue! These policies cover losses to the property, medical payments for tenants or visitors injured on the premises, and your personal liability for alleged negligence.
The amount of coverage depends on your financial situation. If you’ve taken out a mortgage on the property, the lender will probably insist that you buy a policy large enough to cover the loan balance. As a rule of thumb, the higher the value of the property and the greater the risk of potentially catastrophic liability, the more coverage you’ll need.
Your premium will depend on the type of losses covered and the extent of reimbursement. If you choose comprehensive or all risk coverage (which will pay for damage from all causes unless specifically excluded), your cost will be higher than if you buy “named perils” coverage (which covers only losses due to specific causes). Expect a higher premium for replacement value, which will reimburse you fully for rebuilding your property, than for actual cash value coverage, which will pay only the value of the property, less depreciation.
You can also reduce your premium by increasing the deductible (which usually range from $100 to 5% of the building coverage).
Optional coverages include repayment for rental income lost if the property becomes uninhabitable, and for risks of doing business with tenants, such as legal fees and liability against claims for libel, slander, and discrimination.
Our personal insurance specialists would be happy to help you choose the landlord coverage that offers the best value. Just give us a call.
Content provided by Transformer Marketing.
Read more
The third consecutive year of drought plaguing California has encouraged unprecedented legislative and regulatory efforts to conserve what limited water the state has in its supply.
