Insurers like Travelers work very hard to fight insurance fraud. Travelers feels that every dollar they can keep out of the hands of criminals will benefit Traveler's customers, their business partners, and ultimately, the entire U.S. economy.
That's why they wanted to make everyone aware of a scam involving bogus checks with Travelers name and what appears to be a Travelers claim number.
Here are the details: To date, about 250 people have received a letter purporting to be from "Indemnity Financial - A Subsidiary of Travelers Indemnity Company" and containing a counterfeit Travelers Insurance Company check. The letter informs the victim they have won either a "North American Prize Pool" valued at $250,000 or a $65,000 Readers Digest / Publishers Clearing House Online Sweepstakes. The letter also references a "claim number" which is not a valid Travelers claim number. The letter instructs recipients to call a phone number, where they are advised to deposit the check to their bank account and wire the funds to an individual in Canada. They have also learned that other insurance companies' names have been used in the same scam.
If you receive a check from "Travelers Indemnity Company" accompanied by a request similar to this one, please do not deposit the check. You should contact their local law enforcement authority instead. By being alert to this scam, you may be able to help others avoid being victimized by criminals who are using Travelers' name to prey on the public. If you have any questions, you can contact KWJONES@Travelers.com.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
DOL Finalizes LM-30 Rules
The U.S. Department of Labor has finalized the rules for disclosure form LM-30. This form requires officers and employees of labor organizations to report specified financial transactions and payments received to effect public disclosure of any possible conflicts between their personal financial interests and their duty to the labor union and its members. This rule clarifies the Form LM-30 and its instructions by explaining key terms and providing examples of the financial matters that must be reported, eliminates or modifies administrative exceptions in the old Form LM-30 that impeded the full disclosure of financial matters that constitute conflicts, or potential conflicts, of interest, and improves the usability of the reports by union members and the public.
The final regulations change the longstanding de minimis exception by adopting a quantitative standard of $250 as the amount above which a report is required and $20 as the amount above which payments or benefits must be counted when calculating whether the union official’s $250 reporting threshold has been met. The rule also includes a limited exclusion for widely attended gatherings, allowing union officials to attend two such gatherings without incurring a reporting obligation provided the employer or business paying for the gathering spent $125 or less per attendee per gathering. The rules are effective August 16, 2007.
The final regulations change the longstanding de minimis exception by adopting a quantitative standard of $250 as the amount above which a report is required and $20 as the amount above which payments or benefits must be counted when calculating whether the union official’s $250 reporting threshold has been met. The rule also includes a limited exclusion for widely attended gatherings, allowing union officials to attend two such gatherings without incurring a reporting obligation provided the employer or business paying for the gathering spent $125 or less per attendee per gathering. The rules are effective August 16, 2007.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Risk Managers Urged To Plan for Pandemic
It's not a question of if a pandemic will happen, but a question of where and when, said Michael Osterholm, director for the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
Osterholm was the keynote speaker April 30 at the RIMS annual conference in New Orleans. He urged risk managers to take the lead in planning how to respond to a pandemic for their companies, their communities and their families.
The risk of a flu pandemic spreading across the globe is greater today than it was in 1918, when a deadly flu killed about a half million people in the United States alone.
Osterholm said with improved transportation, diseases can be spread through airplane travelers very quickly.
Also, while some argue that improved medical technology would help prevent a flu pandemic from taking so many lives, Osterholm said there's a shortage of hospital beds and medical staff personnel.
For instance, there are only 105,000 ventilators in U.S. hospitals, which tend to keep a two-day supply of oxygen on hand, Osterholm said. "We'd run out of oxygen before we ran out of ventilators," Osterholm said.
In addition to the medical system being overwhelmed, Osterholm said, communities would have to find a way to manage the number of corpses.
"We'd run out of caskets overnight," Osterholm said. "Most communities don't have plans."
And a pandemic would also have tremendous economic ramifications. In the recent SARS outbreak, 80% of flights into and out of Hong Kong were canceled for 10 weeks.
Osterholm was the keynote speaker April 30 at the RIMS annual conference in New Orleans. He urged risk managers to take the lead in planning how to respond to a pandemic for their companies, their communities and their families.
The risk of a flu pandemic spreading across the globe is greater today than it was in 1918, when a deadly flu killed about a half million people in the United States alone.
Osterholm said with improved transportation, diseases can be spread through airplane travelers very quickly.
Also, while some argue that improved medical technology would help prevent a flu pandemic from taking so many lives, Osterholm said there's a shortage of hospital beds and medical staff personnel.
For instance, there are only 105,000 ventilators in U.S. hospitals, which tend to keep a two-day supply of oxygen on hand, Osterholm said. "We'd run out of oxygen before we ran out of ventilators," Osterholm said.
In addition to the medical system being overwhelmed, Osterholm said, communities would have to find a way to manage the number of corpses.
"We'd run out of caskets overnight," Osterholm said. "Most communities don't have plans."
And a pandemic would also have tremendous economic ramifications. In the recent SARS outbreak, 80% of flights into and out of Hong Kong were canceled for 10 weeks.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
IRS Eliminates Form 5500 Schedule P
To reduce administrative burdens of employers, plans, their administrators and trustees and custodians, and in anticipation of the transition to a wholly electronic filing environment under the ERISA Filing Acceptance System (EFAST), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has said in Announcement 2007-63 that the continued use of a Schedule P, Annual Return of Fiduciary Benefit Trust, in connection with the filing of a plan’s Form 5500 is no longer necessary. The elimination of Schedule P is effective for the 2005 and later plan years for Form 5500-EZ filers. For all other Form 5500 series filers, the elimination of Schedule P is effective for the 2006 and later plan years.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
California Lawyers Must Disclose Malpractice Coverage
California lawyers will have to tell their clients whether they carry malpractice insurance under a proposed rule that opponents say could add to the costs of going to court.
About 20% of the state's 150,000 lawyers don't have malpractice coverage, according to Jim Towery, chairman of the State Bar of California task force that drafted the proposed rule.
Towery and others who support the rule said most clients want to know whether a prospective lawyer has insurance, or a history of complaints, but many fail to ask.
Opponents fear that requiring disclosure might effectively force all lawyers to buy such insurance and pass on the costs -- up to $9,000 a year -- to clients.
Most of those who lack the insurance are sole practitioners who represent accident or consumer fraud victims.
"They're the people who really provide access to justice, as opposed to tall-building lawyers," said Diane Karpman, a legal ethics expert who predicted that some small practitioners would be put out of business.
The number of disgruntled clients who sue their attorneys is small relative to other types of civil lawsuits but the number of claims is rising, according to an American Bar Assn. study. For instance, legal malpractice cases worth $2 million or more jumped 60% between 1996 and 2003, the latest year for which data are available. In most cases, clients ask for much less, but the number of claims under $10,000 has risen too, by 8% in the same period.
Most legal malpractice claims result from personal injury and real estate cases, according to the study, and close to 70% of these suits were lodged against sole practitioners or members of firms with 10 lawyers or fewer.
"There are so many ways that the lawyer can make an error," said Edith Matthai, a Los Angeles lawyer who generally represents other lawyers in malpractice cases.
Proponents of the rule, including lawyers who handle malpractice cases for plaintiffs, say the requirement would protect consumers whose claims are mishandled.
"Prospective clients should at least know that an attorney chooses to practice without insurance or is unable to get it," said Robert Sall, a Laguna Beach lawyer.
In the '90s, Sall said, he represented an Orange County woman whose divorce lawyer "failed to take the most basic steps to protect the marital assets." The woman's estranged husband squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars before the divorce was final.
She sued the lawyer for malpractice, winning a $450,000 judgment but collecting a tiny fraction of it because the lawyer, who had no liability coverage, filed bankruptcy. The woman, then in her 60s and with meager resources, had to move in with one of her children.
"There are victims here," Sall said.
Some lawyers feel uncomfortable carrying malpractice insurance. Newport Beach plaintiffs' lawyer Mary Shea has never been sued for malpractice but carried insurance for 10 years. Financial and philosophical reasons prompted her to let her policy lapse in 2005.
The premium took a big bite out of her income, she said, and she felt there was an inherent conflict of interest in relying on the same insurance companies she often sued on behalf of wronged clients to defend her if she herself was sued.
The American Bar Assn adopted a model insurance disclosure rule in 2004, and 20 states now embrace some form of it. Several others are considering proposals. The requirement was in effect in California between 1992 and 2000 but the Legislature let the rule sunset during an unrelated dispute over State Bar funding.
The proposed rule would have to be approved by the State Bar's Board of Governors and the California Supreme Court.
The State Bar's comment period closes Aug. 6. To submit comments, go to the State Bar's website at calsb.org, click on "public comment" and search for "insurance disclosure."
molly.selvin@latimes.com
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
About 20% of the state's 150,000 lawyers don't have malpractice coverage, according to Jim Towery, chairman of the State Bar of California task force that drafted the proposed rule.
Towery and others who support the rule said most clients want to know whether a prospective lawyer has insurance, or a history of complaints, but many fail to ask.
Opponents fear that requiring disclosure might effectively force all lawyers to buy such insurance and pass on the costs -- up to $9,000 a year -- to clients.
Most of those who lack the insurance are sole practitioners who represent accident or consumer fraud victims.
"They're the people who really provide access to justice, as opposed to tall-building lawyers," said Diane Karpman, a legal ethics expert who predicted that some small practitioners would be put out of business.
The number of disgruntled clients who sue their attorneys is small relative to other types of civil lawsuits but the number of claims is rising, according to an American Bar Assn. study. For instance, legal malpractice cases worth $2 million or more jumped 60% between 1996 and 2003, the latest year for which data are available. In most cases, clients ask for much less, but the number of claims under $10,000 has risen too, by 8% in the same period.
Most legal malpractice claims result from personal injury and real estate cases, according to the study, and close to 70% of these suits were lodged against sole practitioners or members of firms with 10 lawyers or fewer.
"There are so many ways that the lawyer can make an error," said Edith Matthai, a Los Angeles lawyer who generally represents other lawyers in malpractice cases.
Proponents of the rule, including lawyers who handle malpractice cases for plaintiffs, say the requirement would protect consumers whose claims are mishandled.
"Prospective clients should at least know that an attorney chooses to practice without insurance or is unable to get it," said Robert Sall, a Laguna Beach lawyer.
In the '90s, Sall said, he represented an Orange County woman whose divorce lawyer "failed to take the most basic steps to protect the marital assets." The woman's estranged husband squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars before the divorce was final.
She sued the lawyer for malpractice, winning a $450,000 judgment but collecting a tiny fraction of it because the lawyer, who had no liability coverage, filed bankruptcy. The woman, then in her 60s and with meager resources, had to move in with one of her children.
"There are victims here," Sall said.
Some lawyers feel uncomfortable carrying malpractice insurance. Newport Beach plaintiffs' lawyer Mary Shea has never been sued for malpractice but carried insurance for 10 years. Financial and philosophical reasons prompted her to let her policy lapse in 2005.
The premium took a big bite out of her income, she said, and she felt there was an inherent conflict of interest in relying on the same insurance companies she often sued on behalf of wronged clients to defend her if she herself was sued.
The American Bar Assn adopted a model insurance disclosure rule in 2004, and 20 states now embrace some form of it. Several others are considering proposals. The requirement was in effect in California between 1992 and 2000 but the Legislature let the rule sunset during an unrelated dispute over State Bar funding.
The proposed rule would have to be approved by the State Bar's Board of Governors and the California Supreme Court.
The State Bar's comment period closes Aug. 6. To submit comments, go to the State Bar's website at calsb.org, click on "public comment" and search for "insurance disclosure."
molly.selvin@latimes.com
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
