Since there are as many variations as there are laws, questions may arise as to the operation and objectives of workers compensation statutes regarding the potential liability of principals or contractors to employees of contractors or subcontractors. For example, are there instances when a principal is liable for workers compensation benefits to employees of contractors or subcontractors even when the actual employer has coverage? And, if a principal has to pay benefits, is there a right of subrogation against the person primarily liable? And, if a contractor sublets work in states other than his home state and a worker is injured, which state law controls the payment process?

For a discussion of these questions and more information on the subject of compensation liability of principals and contractors, see the designated article in the Bulletins.

The Dec Page also has information on EPLI-related laws. The December 6, 2010, edition of the National Underwriter P&S magazine offered an article on the subject written by Mr. Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., a partner with Seyfarth Shaw, LLC in Chicago . Mr. Maatman discussed new laws passed by various state legislatures pertaining to employment-related practices liability. Many examples of the changes by the states were listed.

The court cases presented pertain to wrongful repossession of a car, an EPA letter to the insured, and the intentional conduct exclusion in a personal auto policy. The issue in the wrongful repossession case was whether this act was physical damage (loss of use) caused by the insured to the claimant's auto and covered under the terms of a garage policy. The EPA sent a letter to the insured requesting information about activities that may have resulted in releases or potential threats of releases of hazardous substances. The issue before the district court was whether this letter constituted a lawsuit as defined in the insurance policy, thereby requiring a defense of the insured by its insurer. The final court case deals with an insured intentionally causing harm to several claimants. Such conduct was excluded from coverage under the insured's auto policy, but the claimants argued that the exclusion was invalid since it was inconsistent with a state law requiring auto liability coverage for every owner or operator of a motor vehicle. The court had to decide if the exclusion was void as against public policy.

Questions and Answers

The child of an employee was injured after she fell on the insured's premises. Does the employer's liability exclusion in the CGL form apply? See Employer's Liability Exclusion and Injury to Child of Employee. The insured is an ambulance company and dropped a patient while in the process of transferring him from the gurney to the hospital bed. Is this a professional liability exposure or does the auto policy apply to the claim? See Professional Liability Coverage Applicable to Patient Injury.

Under the terms of the business auto policy, is an intern for a college or school administration considered an employee of the insured? See Employee Definition and Interns. An odor developed in the insured's car from spoiled chicken. Is odor considered a covered physical damage loss? See Odor as a Physical Damage Loss. The insured's product had to be removed from another's property resulting in a claim for loss of use and removal expenses. Does the BOP apply to the claims? See BOP Coverage and Property Damage Exclusions.