Telecommuting & Workers Compensation

With the advent of social engineering, portable computing devices and the growing popularity of telecommuting, new exposures and coverage issues have landed on workers compensation. Telecommuting is an attractive staffing option to both the employer and the employee. From the employer’s perspective, telecommuting allows savings in overhead costs and creates more satisfied employees. Telecommuting also enables the employee to save on work related costs such as clothing and other expenses, and provides the employee with time flexibility. With this flexibility and cost savings comes concern about the impact of this type of arrangement on workers compensation. This short article is a result of a presentation made by Compcheck during a recent WC Symposium and will provide an overview of these issues and potential solutions from a risk manager’s view.

Telecommuting creates issues with traditional workers compensation coverage. Primary, are the definitions of “employee” and “workplace” for the purposes of compensability. Currently, there is no State that provides assistance with either of these, therefore, both the employer and the employee are on their own. From decades of legal experience, it appears that because of the social nature of workers compensation, the Courts have taken a broad view of telecommuters and construe coverage whenever possible. Meaning, both employer and employee are relying on subjective interpretation of each Court District that relies on existing statutory language and the traditional interpretation of employment, i.e., the employer’s control of the “worker” and the “workplace”.

It is not the intent of this short discussion to address the intricacies and finer interpretations of workers compensation laws across our country. Compcheck executives will be more than happy to meet with you, at your convenience, and customize the discussion, however, it is widespread knowledge that Courts have liberally interpreted “employee control”, “employer’s premises” and “employee’s scope of employment”. Most States exclude “domestic workers”, however, they also differ in their definition of “domestic employees”.

Based on a review of all 50 State workers compensation laws and their provisions, it can be concluded that the original intent of the legislature was to exclude at least some types of home workers from workers compensation coverage. Likely reasoning being that the employer had no control over the home situation.

This same lack of employer control is present in telecommuting.

To this date, there have been no legal cases establishing any precedent. There are pro-and-cons both ways: (1) employer extends control to the employee’s home, workers compensation coverage applies, (2) employer does not exert control, there is a potential for more accidents and or injuries.

Under the above scenarios, an employer is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. But there are potential solutions.

In discussing this issue, we have narrowed down to four possible traditional solutions addressing the compensation exposures brought about by telecommuting. They are:

  1. contractual transfer

  2. judicial interpretation

  3. employee selection, and

  4. legislative and or regulatory action

Noted above is the absence of an employer controlled solution from all four of these traditional solutions. Compcheck has implemented a 5th solution by which an employer obtains and retains control of all employees’ compensability and disability, not only in telecommuting, but also in all traditional employer-employee work related relationships. This proprietary solution not only has been judicially accepted but it has also been implemented by insurance carriers of the likes of Starr Companies, Hartford and others in both traditional and Self Insurance Retention type coverage.

The assignment of a workers compensation classification to telecommuting exposure is the right beginning. The issue of “when and where” workers compensation coverage begins and ends has not as of yet been decided; by the time it does, an enormous amount of capital would have been expended. We can all wait for State legislatures to address this issue beginning with the exact definition of what constitutes “telecommuting”. I am sure that all of us are holding our breaths for this to happen.

Or you can contact us for a private, no obligation, consultation in an attempt to control and reduce workers compensation costs.


Tony Damoulis is our Director of Operations and Risk Management. In this position he responsible for all risk, liability and claims management SIR needs of our direct clients and assists our broker clients with developing unique and innovative solutions to improve coverage and lower insurance costs for their accounts. Tony may be reached by email directly through his name link above.

Introducing Feather Case Management

It has been said and it is the basic rule in most if not all states, that an employer takes an injured worker as he or she is. This means that if the worker has a pre-existing condition that is advanced, aggravated or exacerbated by an injury that occurs while the worker is employed by this employer, then the claim is compensable. As we all know, these are heavily litigated and costly issues. Many try, mostly without success, to argue that if there has been no anatomical change in the pre-existing condition, then the injury in question is not compensable. MRIs and other diagnostic tests may be helpful in attempts to resolve these issues, after the injury has occurred and three-quarters of the way in having spent an enormous amount of operating capital.

There is only one way to ensure the actual degree of compensability and disability of any soft tissue work related injury, before this injury occurs.

In our quest to bring the best possible services to our clients, last year we introduced the Emerge EFA-STM patented system as our primary cost-containment and savings program, that, along with our Claims Auditing program, has successfully resolved our clients’ workers’ compensation soft tissue problems in the most financially rewarding and efficient manner by bringing about drastic reductions in soft tissue driven work related incidents and as a consequence, huge reductions in claims costs. See what this is all about by visiting our Emerge page and reading all about this EFA-STM program.

This year we have done one better. We have successfully concluded a joint venture business arrangement with Feather CaseManagement & Consulting, LLC. which rounds out our Total Risk Management System (our TRMS) with its ability to offer our clients  features and benefits not found elsewhere as a totally customizable platform. Features that include Baseline Employment Testing with EFA-STM, Medical / Disability / Vocational and Worker’s Compensation Case Management Services, Job Placement and Vocational Services and Return to Work Programs (Modified Duty, Fit-for Duty). Benefits that include Safety Compliance and Ergonomic Evaluations, Assistance with Safety and Prevention Plans and STAT Preview services to provide claim analysis referencing Jurisdictional Evidenced Based Guidelines.

You can read all about our newest joint venture and how it will help you manage your statutory compliance, streamline your pre-hire and fit-for-duty processes and provide you with the only patented, regulated and judicially successful tool that ensures the actual degree of compensability and disability of any soft tissue work related injury, before this injury occurs. Visit our new page at http://compcheck.net/feather.php or simply choose the “Feather” tab above.

Contact us for a review of your current hiring, safety and claims protocols and to discuss the implementation of the EFA-STM program and how it will drastically reduce the number of soft tissue claims and their costs.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cathy Iekeler leads the Feather Case Management Team along with Tony Damoulis who leads our Risk Management Program. Both can be reached via email or simply by contacting either through going to the bottom of any page on our web site, give us your contact information and click the red button “Send”.

TN S.B. 721 Proposing “Opt-Out” From Traditional Workers Comp Coverage

Senate Bill 721 has been introduced in the Tennessee legislature by State Senator Mark Green (R) from Clarksville. If passed and eventually enacted into law, many Tennessee employers would be allowed to “opt-out” of the state’s traditional workers’ compensation system, by replacing it with private benefit plans, somewhat like those chosen by some Texas and Oklahoma employers for their employees. Green is a doctor, with specialized training in emergency medicine. The Bill would enact a new Chapter 50 to the State Code to be known and cited as the “Tennessee Employee Injury Benefit Alternative.”

The relevant provisions of this Bill, if it is enacted into law in its present form, are as follows:

  • It would apply only to employers with five (5) or more employees
  • It would exclude construction and some other service providers, as set out in TN Code Ann. § 50–6–106(1)-(7)
  • It would require the employer to adopt a written benefit plan that provides at least the following:
    • Medical expense coverage for at least 156 weeks and $300,000 per employee
    • Temporary Total Disability benefits of at least 70% of AWW up to 110% of the state AWW for at least 156 weeks
    • Death and scheduled dismemberment benefits of up to $300,000 per employee
    • A combined single limit for all benefits payable due to an occupational injury, provided that the combined limit is at least $750,000 per employee and $2,000,000 per occurrence
    • It would not generally limit the right of the employee to recover under a cause of action for employer negligence.

 As mentioned above, an employer who utilizes proposed Chapter 50 to “opt-out” of the traditional workers’ compensation system, will generally forfeit the exclusive remedy defense in any civil action filed by an employee against the employer. The plaintiff in such a civil action must, however, prove negligence of the employer. Damages, however, in such civil actions would be limited, as follows:

  • Economic damages in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 per employee and $5,000,000 per occurrence
  • Non-economic damages as determined under TN Code Ann. § 29–39–102
  • Punitive damages as determined under TN Code Ann. § 29–39–104

In any such civil action brought under this proposed Bill, the employer would not be able to defend on the ground that the injury was caused by a co-employee’s negligence. The employer would be able to defend on grounds that the employee’s injury was caused by the employee’s sole negligence, by the failure of the employee to follow known safety rules, or that the injury was occasioned by the employee’s willful act or due to the employee’s intoxication.

Under this proposed Bill, a qualified employer’s injury benefit plan established in compliance, will not be maintained solely to comply with the state’s workers’ compensation law, but it would be the sort of welfare benefit plan that is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA).

The TN bill does not exactly track either Texas or Oklahoma. In Texas there are three (3) options an employer has, (a) do nothing, (b) to provide traditional workers’ comp coverage under the State Act and thereby enjoy the exclusive remedy, or (c) provide benefits under an employee benefit plan where there is no exclusive remedy. In Oklahoma if the employers “opt-out” from the traditional State Act provided benefits, they still maintain the exclusive remedy defense.

Some Of Our Thoughts And Opinions

It is without question that TN S.B. 721 will be reviewed and debated in great depth. Some of our thoughts are along the following issues and questions:

  • It seems to provide for limited medical benefits; different than the traditional State Act coverage;
  • If the above presumption is correct, then does the proposed bill create two (2) separate and distinct classes of employers?

All that remains to be seen, as the legislative session progresses, so stay tuned.

Business information and development is an important segment of the services Compcheck provides to its clients who have opted for our Total Risk Management Solution (TRMS) service plan.


Tony Damoulis leads our Risk Management Program and can be reached via email.

The “Concurrent Causation” Issue

In our capacity of Risk Managers, we are providing diversified services to clients who are presented with unusual claim situations. A number of these situations may include denial of coverage issues on losses reported by our clients and others. Unusual situations, both in the workplace and in general, have become common day occurrences and it pays to stay informed, especially when cost reductions are the primary driving force in consulting with a risk manager.

One of these unusual situations is “concurrent causation” and how it affects both, first and third party claims and losses.

Concurrent causation issues usually arise where a loss results from more than one cause or peril, one or more of which is excluded under the policy at issue. The insurance company will adapt the interpretation most favorable to them and will deny coverage. The insured will now commit time, money and effort in their attempt to discover other avenues of coverage and force the insurance company to comply with the terms of their policy. This could take years, unless the insured had the forethought of retaining the services of a risk manager to assist them, from day one. Let us take a look at a number of these situations.

In reviewing a concurrent causation issue involving a first party damage, the Jones family had a brand new home built and on possession, insured the property with Ajax Insurance Company. Four years later, an underground sewer pipe broke at a point beyond the foundation, causing softening of the ground and settlement and subsequent property damage which was followed by a claim. This property damage could have been caused by any number of perils, however, one of them, subsidence, the motion of the ground as it settles, was an excluded peril under the issued policy and therefore Ajax decided to raise the exclusion and deny coverage. When the dust finally settled (no pun intended), some expensive time later, the trial Court found that “…the cause of said sewer pipe so breaking and leaking was either the settling and consolidation of the inadequately compacted fill material upon which it (the sewer pipe) was placed, or the improper closure of certain joints therein, or a combination of both these causes…”. While subsidence and earth movement were excluded perils under the Ajax policy, negligence of the builder resulting in leaking pipe joints was not excluded. The Court held that Ajax was liable for the damage to the house because the rupture of the sewer line attributable to the negligence of the third-party contractor (rather than subsidence or earth movement), was the “efficient proximate cause” of the loss. The Court based its holding, in part, on a 1930 principle that “where there is a concurrence of different causes, the efficient cause, is the one that sets others in motion, and therefore is the cause to which the loss should be attributed, even though the other causes may follow it and operate more immediately in producing the disaster”.

Ajax, supported by certain section of that state’s Insurance Code, propositioned that the loss would not have occurred but for the excluded peril of subsidence. The Court, in reviewing other sections of the same state Insurance Code decided, by relying heavily on the above presumptive definition of “efficient cause”, that if the proximate cause or efficient cause or the first cause that set the ball rolling started it all, then the claim is covered. (in simple language).

The rules are different in third party (liability) claims. Where injury or damage results from the concurrence of truly independent causes, one of which is an insured risk in another issued policy of insurance, then coverage exists if the insured risk was a concurrent proximate cause of the current injury or damage. It is immaterial that an excluded cause was also involved or even if it was the “prime” or “moving” cause.

To better illustrate an example, let us review a situation that created case law back in 1973.  A passenger in an automobile used by the insured was injured by a bullet when the insured’s pistol accidentally discharged while the insured was driving his insured truck on unpaved terrain. The injury resulted in part from the insured having filed down the pistol’s trigger mechanism to make it a “hair trigger”.  Even though there may have been concurrent causes, the auto insurer took the position that the efficient cause or proximate cause of this incident did not have anything to do with the use of the automobile and denied coverage under the insured’s auto policy. Passenger’s luck would have it that the insured was a homeowner and had a valid homeowners’ policy. “Filing down your pistol’s trigger mechanism” was not an excluded peril in the homeowners’ policy, but injuries “arising out of use of an automobile” was. So the Court in this case decided that the insured’s homeowners’ policy covered his liability for negligent acts, including the modification of the trigger mechanism, as an independent contributing negligence, but excluded injuries “arising out of the use of an automobile”, therefore there was coverage for the peril. The injuries that “arose out of the use of the automobile” that were excluded from the homeowners’ policy, were picked up by the auto carrier as another independent contributing negligence.

Where the “concurring causes” are not “truly independent”, but ultimately joining together to produce injury, the above landmark case does not apply in quite those terms.  After failing to take medication for epilepsy, the insured had a seizure while driving and caused a collision. Only the auto coverage, and not the homeowners’ policy, was triggered because the failure to take the medication was not a divisible, independent cause of the collision. In other words, even though the failure to take the medication may have been the cause that set the other in motion, it was not an independent cause of the loss and therefore not negligence covered by the homeowners’ policy.

Compcheck, as your Risk Manager, will review claims as they occur, will identify possible unusual issues involving coverage and has been advising our clients as to the most favorable course to take in reporting the claim and to whom. In addition, we will review and audit all claims in an effort to provide guidance leading to cost reductions, both in premium and all other associated expenditures.


Tony Damoulis, in addition to being our Director of Operations, also directs our liability division that deals exclusively with our clients’ risk and claims management needs.

 

 

Why are States considering opting-out from workers’ compensation

For many years, Texas was the only state that allowed employers to opt out of the workers compensation system. Opting out from the workers compensation system, strips a state’s employers of the exclusive remedy protection of the workers compensation law, as well as certain common law defenses to worker injury claims.

Recently, other states have looked at the business climate in Texas and considered the merits of an opt-out system. Last year, Oklahoma began allowing employers to opt out of the state’s workers compensation law on the condition that they provide comparable benefits to injured workers under an alternative plan. While challenges to the law were expected, so far none have been successful in striking down the right of the employer to opt out. Last month, the Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to hear a case in which two injured workers were seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional.

Bills have been introduced in Tennessee and South Carolina that would allow employers in these states to opt out of the workers compensation system and create their own occupational injury benefit plan. As in Oklahoma, employers in these states would have to obtain approval from the appropriate state department by showing they are financially capable of supporting the plan and that all required benefits are being provided. With legislatures in recess, both bills — the Tennessee Employee Injury Benefit Alternative (Senate Bill 721) and the South Carolina Employee Injury Benefit Plan Alternative (H. 4197) are on hold until 2016. Even so, the opt-out movement appears to be gaining steam.

Published by IRMI  ISSN: 1949-419X

Compcheck Commentary:   IRMI with this published article has made a very good and very important point. We are not here to “politicize” but we are here to earn a living by servicing our clients the best way we know how. First, there is no question that health care costs have skyrocketed. Second, there is no question that the costs of workers compensation insurance have skyrocketed also. The second is a direct consequence and a product of the first. In a previous news article we posted, published by Reuters on June 11, titled “Many US hospitals mark up prices 1000 percent”, Reuters makes it abundantly clear, that workers compensation medical costs are not as highly regulated as Medicare costs are, and therefore “…employers who pay into workers compensation…pay full freight…that results in higher premiums…”.

State Legislatures are starting to become aware of the disparity between “standard care” and “high costs”, especially as it affects local business. We all agree there is a definite link between domiciling business in a State and the actual operating cost of that business. If an owner has to choose between keeping the business healthy or driving it into the ground simply by operation of law, there will be no choice. Either the business will go bankrupt and local consumers will loose their jobs, or the business will re-domicile in another State, in which case, local consumers will still loose their jobs. Either way, the local economy and people will be affected.

We know we may be painting a simple picture of what is purported to be a complicated problem. Well, that may be true, but the fact is, the business owner has another option. Get involved in an attempt to control insurance premiums, which every one knows, are a big percentage of the overall operating expenses. The insurance industry and its machinations, is not being taught in the business schools or simply learned by reading. If a business owner finds the “right person” in an insurance broker and the “right” relationship is established, that business owner has accomplished one of the most important tasks in keeping their business alive and healthy.

With over 95 years of experience under our belt, Compcheck Corp has been in the forefront of successfully assisting insurance brokers and their clients, in drastically reducing insurance premium costs, especially in the workers compensation arena. These reductions can have a retroactive effect in reducing the applicable mod rates which insurance companies use to calculate workers compensation premiums. There are two (2) options: One is not to have any workers compensation claims, and two, is to mitigate the claims you have or the ones you will have. Obviously, option one is not a natural or a logical option; they call them “accidents”, in simple language and for a reason; they are after all, by definition, unexpected. These claims will always be there with a certain frequency and or severity. The other option, the one involving mitigation or reduction of claims costs, is what Compcheck Corp does. It reduces and or mitigates the frequency and or severity of these claims and thereby reduces the cost of workers compensation insurance.

There is one thing for certain; regardless of what State Legislatures do in the future to assist businesses in reducing their workers compensation insurance premium costs, the need for claims frequency and or severity mitigation, will always be there. That’s why you need Compcheck Corp.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mike Turano, the founder of Compcheck, was a pioneer in identifying the universal need for workers’ compensation successful claims auditing, management and rate reduction with the associated subsequent overall insurance premium cost reduction.
Tony Damoulis has made the international world of the insurance and re-insurance industry his home since 1972. Tony’s professional experience includes declaratory judgements, medical malpractice, other professional liability claims and the standard primary and surplus secondary insurance markets, along with reinsurance and alternative risk funding.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Many US hospitals mark up prices 1,000 percent, study says

Published June 09, 2015 by Reuters

Even the astronomical price markups that consumers regularly pay for, say, wine in restaurants pale beside those in some U.S. hospitals: The price for procedures is often 10 times the cost, according to a study published on Monday in the journal Health Affairs.

Of the 50 hospitals with the highest markups, 49 are for-profit, including 25 owned by Community Health Systems.

Community Health and other for-profits did not respond to requests for explain their markups, but in the past hospitals have said list prices, shown on a “chargemaster,” are irrelevant because “no one” pays those.

In fact, out-of-network patients and the uninsured are often charged list prices, said Dr. Renee Hsia of the University of California, San Francisco, who has studied hospital charges but was not involved in this research. “People do get bills based on the chargemaster, and for out-of-network care insured patients pay a percentage” of chargemaster prices, she said.

Auto insurers, covering care after accidents, and workers’ compensation also pay full freight. (emphasis ours). “That results in higher premiums for auto insurance and for employers who pay into workers’ comp,” said study co-author Ge Bai of Washington & Lee University. “That means we are all victims of these markups.”

Hsia and Gerard Anderson of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health blamed lack of regulation and transparency for 1,000 percent markups. Non-transparency means patients cannot learn what a procedure will cost before they get a bill, preventing comparison shopping.

Those bills can be eye-opening. Hsia, for instance, found that charges for a lipid panel blood test varied from $10 in one California hospital to $10,169 in another; opening blocked arteries cost $22,047 in one, $165,386 in another.

For their study, Anderson and Bai analyzed 2012 data, the latest available, from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to identify the 50 hospitals with the highest markup over Medicare’s allowed charges, which Medicare considers a hospital’s cost.

The 50 had an average markup of 1,010 percent, vs. 340 percent for the other 4,433.

Data for 2013, released last week, support the findings. The hospital with the highest markup in 2012, North Okaloosa Medical Center in Florida, charged $113,000 to treat respiratory infections in 2013, vs. Medicare’s $10,000. In second place, Carepoint Health-Bayonne in New Jersey charged $193,000 for pneumonia vs. Medicare’s $9,600.

To treat hemorrhage, common in auto accidents, Okaloosa charged $79,350 vs. Medicare’s reimbursement of $5,177.


Tony Damoulis, in addition to being our Director of Operations, also directs our liability division that deals exclusively with our clients’ risk and claims management needs.

 

Who We Are and What We Do

The interactive video below, explains in seven short screens, how we can help your agency with value-added services that could be offered to your current and prospective clients as an integral part of your agency or, at your option, on a “per client” or on an “as needed” basis.

Please click on the video below to start.

We are available for a consultation to discuss your agency’s needs. Contact us either by phone, fax or email or simply use our “Contact Us” link located at the top and bottom of everyone of our pages.


Tony Damoulis, in addition to being our Director of Operations, also directs our liability division that deals exclusively with our clients’ risk and claims management needs.

 

Tuna company & 2 managers charged in death of worker

Published April 28, 2015 Associated Press

LOS ANGELES – Bumble Bee Foods and two managers were charged by Los Angeles prosecutors Monday with violating safety regulations in the death of a worker who was cooked in an industrial oven with tons of tuna.

Jose Melena was performing maintenance in a 35-foot-long oven at the company’s Santa Fe Springs plant before dawn Oct. 11, 2012, when a co-worker, who mistakenly believed Melena was in the bathroom, filled the pressure cooker with 12,000 pounds of canned tuna and it was turned on.

When a supervisor noticed Melena, 62, was missing, an announcement was made on the intercom and employees searched for him in the facility and parking lot, according to a report by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. His body was found two hours later after the pressure cooker, which reached a temperature of 270 degrees, was turned off and opened.

The company, its plant Operations Director Angel Rodriguez and former safety manager Saul Florez were each charged with three counts of violating Occupational Safety & Health Administration rules that caused a death. The charges specify that the company and the two men willfully violated rules that require implementing a safety plan [emphasis ours], rules for workers entering confined spaces, and a procedure to keep machinery or equipment turned off if someone’s working on it. Rodriguez, 63, of Riverside, and Florez, 42, of Whittier, could face up to three years in prison and fines up to $250,000 if convicted of all charges, prosecutors said. Bumble Bee Foods faces a maximum fine of $1.5 million.

The state’s occupational safety agency previously cited the San Diego-based company for failing to properly assess the danger to employees working in large ovens and fined it $74,000. Bumble Bee, which has appealed the penalties, said the company improved its safety program after the tragedy. “We remain devastated by the loss of our colleague Jose Melena in the tragic accident,” the company said in a statement. “We disagree with and are disappointed by the charges filed by the Los Angeles district attorney’s office.” Florez refused to comment, and messages seeking comment from Rodriguez were not immediately returned.

District Attorney Jackie Lacey said prosecutors and investigators from her office have been going to major industrial accidents to ensure illegal and deadly work practices are prosecuted. Prosecutions of workplace violations are uncommon — even in fatalities. The state cited nearly 15,000 workplace violations in 2013, according to the state agency. Of 189 fatality investigations opened that year, the state only referred 29 to prosecutors.

District attorneys only filed charges in 14 cases that year, though some of those charges could have been for cases referred in earlier years. They could have brought charges subsequently for cases filed in 2013.

Compcheck Commentary: Regardless of any regulatory, administrative or political discussions that may become food for thought, the fact remains that all businesses, regardless of size, type, exposure or risk, once they become subject to any type of insurance or other risk transfer vehicle, intended to protect others, especially workers compensation, should have a safety plan in place. This safety plan should be reviewed/audited at least every three years to make sure it is responsive to and in compliance with, ever-changing regulations.

Tony Damoulis
Compcheck Operations

You may contact Mr. Damoulis at his Compcheck email address TDamoulis@compcheck.net or via his office phone at 866-626-4426 x301

You Spoke, We Listened

The New Compcheck

For over fifteen years we have been successfully assisting business owners and insurance brokers and their clients with first controlling and then reducing their insurance premium costs, from year to year. We are honored to have some of our clients with us, for every one of these fifteen years.

Compcheck and our services got off the ground, initially, auditing our clients’ workers’ compensation costs. The success of our workers’ compensation program has no equal in our industry. A small number of firms have tried over the years to compete with us, without success. There are two main reasons why we have succeeded and they have failed; the excellence of our servicing and the loyal support of our satisfied clients.

Throughout this period, our clients have been demanding a more extensive service package to address other areas of insurance such as comprehensive general liability, professional liability and all other market available insurance transfer and distribution policies that protect their business and corporate assets. To satisfy the need of our clients, we had to meet and exceed the quality of our current services.

We are happy to inform our clients and prospective clients the time has come. We are now a full service firm, offering the excellence of our services across the wide area of the primary, secondary and captive insurance markets. Our Total Risk Management Solution (TRMS) exceeds any auditing standard dealing with insurance, insurable claims, other risk transfer situations, loss control and site safety requirements and regulations that may affect our clients.

Compcheck Corporation is now in the undisputed position to boast combined over 100 years of professional knowledge, skill and experience, all dedicated to solving our clients’ insurance related issues, controlling their insurance related costs and substantially reducing same, year after year.

I personally invite you to talk with one of our executives and explore the possibilities.

Dawn Turano
President & CEO