Insurance Journal Forums

Seems like every other day I read in our local newspapers or hear on the radio where some thief has embezzled/stolen thousands of dollars from either their employer or an entity such as a Little League association, fire company, or American legion Post, etc. These news articles never mention a bond or crime insurance involvement. Sometimes (usually in a follow-up article after the conviction) a repayment 'deal' is mentioned. The involvement of a bonding company or insurance carrier is (again) never mentioned. What is the matter with businesses and organizations that either do not bond the people who handle their money or purchase crime coverage... or .... are these incidents some type of 'undesirable publicity' the insurance and bond industry would rather not be connected with? I ask you agents and brokers out there this question: Do you recommend an individual (or position) bond or crime insurance to these entities and businesses that you offer coverage to? In your opinion, which is better and why? You do have a 'sign off' in your commercial archives for all of your commercial customers who have refused to insure their money, correct?
Regards, Dar Novak AAI

Too much trust is given when they should at least be doing Background & Credit Checks (Annually), this would/should help prevent some of this things.

I would say that in many cases there is coverage through a crime policy or endorsement providing employee dishonesty on the victim's package policy or bop. I know in the claims I've seen, it was rarely publicized that there was insurance, and the repayment provisions were to reimburse the insurance company not the victim/employer. Also, a factor that comes in to play is the employer's willingness to prosecute which is a coverage trigger in some cases.

"willingness to prosecute" That is what keeps most collections / repayment from taking place. Usually a back ground check works after the event. If your office has an open cash drawer (everyone uses the same cash drawer) policy how do you prove theft (who did it?). One office had 2 working together but they would have had to prosecute both parties and the open cash drawer made the prospects poor. Another office assigns cash drawers to each person taking money - each one has to balance out each evening.

Wildwillie wrote:"willingness to prosecute" That is what keeps most collections / repayment from taking place. Usually a back ground check works after the event. If your office has an open cash drawer (everyone uses the same cash drawer) policy how do you prove theft (who did it?). One office had 2 working together but they would have had to prosecute both parties and the open cash drawer made the prospects poor. Another office assigns cash drawers to each person taking money - each one has to balance out each evening.

And this is a great reason why bonds must be considered over crime insurance.