Injury Property Damage Report For Non-Employees: Fill & Download for Free

Many police agencies will not take non-injury accident reports on private property. This is usually because the agency is overburdened with more pressing calls for service.The hotel has no obligation to show you security footage. This is partially out of self-preservation. If a hotel employee somehow contributed to the cause of the accident, the hotel could be liable for damages.If you plan on taking this further, one thing you need to do right away is to write the hotel a “preservation letter.” This is notice to the hotel that the security camera recordings are potentially evidence in a lawsuit, and should be preserved pending a subpoena. Otherwise, the hotel can delete the recordings on whatever schedule they desire.I don’t see you getting any traction with a lawsuit without the assistance of an attorney. You would have to file a civil action against the hotel and generate a subpoena out of that action to get the security recordings. You’re not going to be able to do that on your own.If you do get access to the security recordings, and the license plate of the vehicle that hit yours is visible, you will then need to track down the registered owner of the vehicle. You can get this information from the motor vehicles bureau in some states, and you can’t get it in others. If you do get it, be prepared to have the registered owner deny they were driving. There are all sorts of obstacles to a situation like this.You also need to consider the loss amount. If your car has suffered less than a couple of thousand dollars of damage, the costs of a lawsuit could be prohibitive. It doesn’t make sense to spend $5000 (or maybe lots more) in attorney’s fees to recover $2000 in damages.

Given the risk to life and the economic impact of coronavirus, policyholders and the insurance industry alike are watching and considering whether business interruption, event cancellation, or liability and workers’ compensation insurance benefits may be available while similarly assessing liability risks. This three-part series will cover specific aspects of insurance that all stakeholders – insured, insurers and brokers – should consider.Coronavirus: Status and ImpactIn response to the thousands of reported new cases of COVID-19 in countries around the globe, the World Health Organization (WHO) has upgraded their Risk Assessment for China, Regional Level and Global Level to Very High (the highest risk level). There are more than 90,000 confirmed cases of the virus. The United States is now reporting more than 100 infections as of Tuesday, March 3, 2020.The Federal Reserve announced an emergency rate cut on March 3, but it was not enough to stop the market’s slide to new lows indicating that investors see the virus as a continuing threat to economic growth and corporate profits over the next several months. The Wall Street Journal reports that economists predict disruptions in the global and domestic supply chains could cause product shortages and hurt overall sales, but some U.S. retailers are noting strong sales as consumers stock up on food and other staples. In this third part of the three-part series, we will review Liability and Workers’ Compensation insurance factors that all insurance stakeholders should consider when claims under these policies are brought forward.Liability InsuranceIf the coronavirus continues to spread worldwide, insurers are likely to confront liability claims that span the spectrum of their insurance product lines. General Liability Insurance. Businesses, particularly those that open their doors to the general public, may find themselves targets of claims that their negligence led to the exposure and infection of clients:Exposure resulting in bodily injury or property damageNegligence related to visitors to businesses or locations such as offices, daycare centers, retail shops, hotels and places of worshipProduct liability related to air filtration and recirculation, particularly in situations involving airplanes and hospitalsPersonal injury involving occurrences such as wrongful eviction or imprisonmentConstitutional claims involving the quarantine or restriction of infected or exposed personsNegligence or other liability suits against a company or organization that fails to implement a pandemic contingency plan.Of course, the target of such claims will be not only the business but also the business’s general liability insurance and its coverage for “bodily injury.” Policy exclusions may exist for claims arising from a pandemic, virus or bacteria. Many insurers also include broadly worded pollution exclusions that could serve to preclude or limit coverage.Errors & Omissions (E&O) InsuranceThere is an adage that the most likely place to get sick is in a hospital. Medical care and managed care providers purchase errors and omissions (E&O) insurance that provides coverage for bodily injury arising out of their providing or failing to provide medical care. While such policies generally preclude coverage for bodily injury to employees during the course of their employment (i.e., an employee being exposed to an infectious or contagious disease), such policies may respond to claims that a health care professional acted or failed to act in a manner that led to a patient (non-employee) contracting a coronavirus bodily injury.Directors & Officers (D&O) InsuranceThe coronavirus has roiled stock markets worldwide, resulting in ups and downs depending on whether the market perceives that the crisis is being managed appropriately and whether global supply chains will be impacted. Ultimately, how a company responds to the coronavirus may subject its directors and officers to the scrutiny of the company’s shareholders. Shareholder suits have become commonplace when market valuations are purported to have unreasonably dipped. In response to a coronavirus-based loss in value, shareholders may argue that the directors and officers committed acts or omissions responsible for the loss in valuation and, in turn, the loss befalling the individual shareholder.Most D&O insurers include absolute bodily injury exclusions that expressly preclude coverage for any claim or loss “based on, directly or indirectly arising out of or relating to actual or alleged bodily injury.” While there are different versions of the exclusion, the insurer’s intent is usually to preclude coverage for any claim, even one for economic loss, if it is based on, arising out of or related to bodily injury. Of note, such exclusions continue to be challenged in the courts.Workers’ Compensation InsuranceWorkers’ compensation policies generally extend insurance benefits to employees for injuries “arising out of or in the course of employment.” Workers’ compensation actions concerning the language often address whether the claimed injury is truly work-related, focusing on such factors related to the loss as its nature, the injured employee’s activity, the time and the location. Consequently, employees and employers whose work is related to coronavirus should maintain detailed records identifying potential exposures.ConclusionTo prepare for the potentially catastrophic impact of a global pandemic or similar health crisis, policyholders and insurers should review Liability and Workers’ Compensation polices to determine:What new exposures and risks are present given the unique nature of the coronavirus?Are coverage changes needed?Which current policyholders are likely impacted most?Are we receiving early inquiries and claims, and, if so, what do they indicate?Do we have a process to triage claims to ensure they are handled in the best interest of all stakeholders?The risk of a global pandemic with catastrophic consequences seems to grow more prevalent every few years. To prepare for the potentially catastrophic impact of a global pandemic, insureds, insurers and brokers must understand what is and is not covered under such policies, and should work together to minimize potential losses by evaluating potential claims as early as possible.

It's increasingly common.Mostly it's a liability issue. Infotech is subject to sabotage or theft. Coworkers are subject to injury, threat or insult. The workplace is subject to drama and disruption. Affirmative Action rules are subject to be violated in angry outbursts, especially if the employee is a manager. Other employees’ property is subject to theft, damage, etc.“But, I would never do that!”I spent over an hour trying to maintain order while a Ph.D vice president screamed, shouted, insisted on gathering up all her personal effects-- which included art that she had sprinkled liberally around the work area she supervised--and disrupted a senior exec meeting with the sheer volume of sound and rage-filled content. It's not possible to foresee what a given employee may do, overtly or clandestinely.Stories over 30 years included having local police on civil standby when a potentially dangerous termination was scheduled and driving in urgently from vacation to talk to an employee whose family had a lot of violent crime. He had showed up for no reason in the headquarters lobby with a briefcase.I was not about to delegate that task to anyone who reported to me. Had an ok conversation with him. He thought he had to do an exit interview. The briefcase held nothing but his notice of termination.“But, management should be able to anticipate who will create a problem.”Nope. Watch the nightly news and you'll hear lots of “he seemed like a nice guy. Didn't say much.”And for the bonus round--if management uses its discretion and allows some people to walk themselves out, but not others, you create an audit trail. That could become evidence in a complaint claiming that you escorted out minorities out more often than non-minorities. Those claims almost always (95%) settle and cost the company money.With all those factors in play, employment law counsel almost always says it’s best to go high-security and be consistent for all cases.Welcome to the law of unintended consequences. Exit scenarios cannot become dramatic or disruptive and the employer bears almost all the responsibility to prevent that.PS: Re-reading this post, I could have done a better job of distinguishing resignation, where the employee leaves the company voluntarily, from employment separations where the company is the moving party. Most of the rationale applies to resignations as well, but I didn’t say that explicitly.When companies receive a resignation with two weeks’ notice, they are more likely than in the past to make the separation effective immediately. This can happen two ways. In the case of a good employee in a sensitive job role, the company may leave the employee on payroll and just give them an “assignment” to go home and stay off company premises. In other cases, companies may counteract the resignation and create a termination-of-employment that’s effective immediately.This phenomenon, and the OP’s concern, are examples of the asymmetrical relationship between an employee and the employer. Employees are free to say what they choose on almost any topic, including their separation. The odds of being challenged at law by the employer are extremely small.However, the employer cannot explain its position or reveal confidential information about the employee’s situation to co-workers. If a sympathetic employee leaves and falsely condemns the employer, the employer’s confidentiality obligations usually prevent them from fully communicating their reasons for doing what they did.Sorry to report that this is all so complex. Wasn’t my idea.