Workers’ Compensation Insurers Face Rise in Motor Vehicle Accidents

August 14, 2018

  • August 14, 2018 at 1:38 pm
    reality bites says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 1

    I also wonder if there is a correlation with employers getting rid of fleets and relying upon their employees using their personal vehicles, which may or may not be as well-maintained or as new as their corporate fleets used to be? Most of my clients have shifted from “any auto” to HNO to cut expenses.

    • August 14, 2018 at 4:36 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 12

      There is a correlation with employers hiring people who have issues with drugs, especially stoners on Marijuana. That is why many employers make the prospective employee take a drug test. Many applicants don’t show up for the test because they know they can’t pass it. The employers know if they hire someone who smokes the weed and there is a serious accident, they can be held responsible to a greater degree because they knowingly hired the man with a drug problem.

      • August 15, 2018 at 2:31 pm
        Karl says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 10
        Thumb down 3

        You’re ridiculous.

        • August 16, 2018 at 8:22 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 6

          You’re not offering any counter argument. So, who’s ridiculous?

          • August 16, 2018 at 1:25 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            APRIL 17, 2018 AT 9:15 PM
            DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
            LIKE OR DISLIKE:
            0
            I and anyone else posting here DO NOT have to justify our comments. If that were the case, I and everyone else could simply create rabbit holes by questioning the relevance of ANYTHING ANYONE writes. THAT is understood by anyone with an IQ over 80.

          • August 16, 2018 at 3:52 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            If he / she wants to sustain that comment, it must be justified with a counter argument about my ‘ridiculousness’. By challenging it, I have just refuted it until such time a counter argument is entered.

            In the case you reference with your archived post cut-n-paste, I was able to sustain my point of view with the details I included originally – which you omitted.

          • August 17, 2018 at 8:55 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            MAY 4, 2018 AT 8:03 AM
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            LIKE OR DISLIKE:
            0
            2
            Next time, don’t reply until you have something substantive to write about THE ARTICLE TOPIC, and not about the posters of comments with which you disagree.

      • August 15, 2018 at 3:37 pm
        ??? says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 0

        Just about every dedicated driving role for CMVs requires post accident drug testing. Do you have any statistics from the FMCSA stating that frequency in substance abuse related crashes has increased?

        • August 15, 2018 at 5:41 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 6

          Post accident drug tests? Isn’t the employer on the hook for at faults caused by stoners? You do the drug testing, background checks and MVR checks before there is a bad accident.

          • August 16, 2018 at 8:55 am
            ??? says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            The employer is on the hook, and 99% of employers will drug test prior to hiring – not many companies writing insurance for companies that don’t have simple procedures like that in place.

            However, the post accident drug tests would be recorded and provide a statistic toward the national trends to see if more accidents have occurred with a driver who was under the influence of any substance.

      • August 16, 2018 at 12:08 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        Who is hiring drivers without doing background checks and drug testing? They aren’t hiring “stoners”. And, every driving applicant realizes before applying they will be required to do a drug test. That driver may do things to mask the test, but he/she knows they will be required to pee. Employers also do the background check so they aren’t hiring someone with 5 DUIs, too. And they perform this due diligence because of the legal environment today. Agent, just admit it, you are trolling out here hoping you can accuse people of scromiting.

  • August 14, 2018 at 5:24 pm
    Old Man says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 5

    Wrong thread, stoner.

  • August 14, 2018 at 6:34 pm
    Peter Vlahos says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    We specialize in trucking & transportation; and encourage all insureds to buy a good dash camera. From the truckers vantage, you can see the awful driving occurring & it is unfortunate because it is completely avoidable.

    • August 15, 2018 at 8:59 am
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 0

      Agreed Peter. Dashboard cameras are ubiquitous in other parts of the world, but I rarely see them on auto’s in the US (I know that’s anecdotal evidence, but there are a ton of cars on the road every day). Not only will it cut down on insurance carrier expenses (much easier to determine liability when you can see what happened in real time) but it also saves the insured time and effort when filing a claim.

      • August 15, 2018 at 12:05 pm
        Andrew G. Simpson says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 0

        I’d be curious about readers’ thoughts on why dashcams are not very popular in the U.S. Are we more trusting of insurers and police to investigate accidents? Do state no-fault laws reduce need to assign blame? There are no insurance discounts here that I know of. Other possibilities?

        • August 15, 2018 at 12:29 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 0

          I’m totally guessing here, but I don’t think it has anything to do with negligence laws. If that was a driver, I’d expect to see them all over Pure (e.g. FL) & Contributory (e.g. NC) Negligence states.

          Initially I thought it was a privacy concern and a reluctance to have something recording your every move and action, but then Google Home & Alexa are in a ton of homes doing just that, so that theory is out of the window.

          I’m sure more people would have one if there was a discount for having a dashboard camera (although a premium discount seems unmanageable – more likely that it would be a waiver of the deductible).

          I’d guess more people don’t have them because (1) they don’t see any bang-for-their-buck and presume they’re good drivers and won’t get into an accidents. Just my $0.02 — I’d also love to hear other’s thoughts on this topic.

        • August 15, 2018 at 3:25 pm
          ??? says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 0

          We write Trucking & Transportation. The main reason I have seen that insureds are not adopting these dashcams faster is sheer resistance to change.

          • August 16, 2018 at 8:27 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            Yes, ‘resistance’ is the word that describes the current practice. But A. Simpson asked for readers’ opinions as to what underlies that tendency.
            I’ll give it some thought and respond later with my opinion… For now, an initial thought is concern over the possible liability of the employer for actions by their employees caught on camera; i.e. respondeat superior.

          • August 16, 2018 at 9:26 am
            ??? says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 0

            Polar,

            That was a serious issue with employers. At first, the dashcams that specific insurance companies were pushing were duel facing (to the road, and toward the driver), but they found that it had the opposite effect, lawyers were able to take advantage and exploit any possible error the driver may have made. Now they push the forward facing cameras. Still, some employers have an inherit skepticism against the cameras; like big brother is always watching.

          • August 16, 2018 at 3:55 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            Resistance is not a reason, it is an effect. The history doesn’t provide a clear, underlying motive. It merely is history. Employer’s attitude is often driven by their self-interests rather than public service or such.

  • August 16, 2018 at 1:33 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    I am also curious about how the trend in these numbers might develop and change as we continue to embrace autonomous vehicles. Charlie Kingdollar speaks about that very topic at conferences such as the commercial NAMIC one in Chicago. Will most trucks still have a delivery person in the cab? Will companies want someone manning the wheel until we improve this technology? And, this doesn’t just impact the WC monoline carriers. Those offering package and WC can feel a double whammy effect when accidents occur. This is certainly a topic I’d like to track over the next 5-10 years.

  • August 23, 2018 at 8:18 pm
    Michael says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If they are DOT vehicles the drivers are required to have annual physicals and drug screening exam. I know they can dodge the test date, but we have encouraged employers to conduct random testing and add the action to the employee handbooks which are signed annually.

    Regarding the cell use, I would encourage employers to execute an agreement pertaining to use. A national carrier has implemented a policy pertaining to citations and use. If a driver is cited while working, termination is possible and likely. If the employer pulls a random MVR and a citation is identified, the driver is not permitted to drive for 3 months. These agreements require an annual signature.

    Regarding the attys and telematics/cameras they are requesting the data in discovery.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*