How I Help Insurance Agents When Workers Comp Audits Go Sideways

 I've spent more than half my life helping business policyholders reduce Workers Comp audits by finding and correcting technical errors by insurance companies. Just this week, a small Idaho contractor got a $28,000 refund from his last Workers Comp audit, because I got the classifiction code used retroactively corrected.

$28,000 may not seem like a huge sum to many companies, for this small biz it was a big deal.

Anyway. my point is that it's not just the policyholder I help. Often, it's the insurance agent who sold that Workers Comp policy, because policyholders often unfairly hold the agent responsible when they get what we call a "Shock Audit" for Workers Comp.

That's why we often get brought in by those insurance agents, to help their clients with contentious audits.

I'm a specialized consultant on Workers Comp audits, classifications, experience mods, and related technical issues that impact Workers Comp premiums. But I don't sell insurance.

That means an insurance agent doesn't have to worry I'll try to poach his account, if he brings me in to help. I'm not an insurance producer and I'm not affiliated with any insurance agency or insurance company.

And as part of the process, I can explain why insurance agents aren't to blame when an insurance company ends up developing a large amount of Additional Premium on an audit. I've been an agent, I know just how little authority and influence insurance companies give agents over premium audits.

But policyholders often don't understand that. They only know that the insurance company that the agent hooked them up with is clobbering them with a serious, unexpected bill that feels unfair and unwarranted. And they believe that the insurance agent is in on some kind of nefarious scheme to rip them off by making the back end of the insurance cost a lot more than initially expected.

Policyholders often wrongly think that the insurance agent makes a windfall with these Shock Audits (which isn't true but is a common and poisonous misconception that can really damage the relationship between the insurance producer and the client.)

When an insurance agent introduces me to this angry and frustrated client, a couple of positive things happen.

One, it can enhance the professional standing of the agent with the client. Now, instead of being part of the problem, the agent is part of the solution.

Secondly, the agent doesn't have to get in an adversarial position with an insurer that may be an important market for future sales. Insurance companies already are familiar with my work and they understand that disputing Workers Comp audits is what I do for a living. It shields the agent from negative impacts of an audit dispute because, as far as the insurance company knows, the agent had nothing to do with bringing me into the picture.

After all, we get calls and emails almost every day from frustrated policyholders about one of these Shock Audits for Workers Compensation insurance. So most of our audit disputes originate directly with the policyholder contacting us.

And as part of my work, I can explain the inner workings of premium audits and why insurance agents really don't have much, if any, influence over how a premium auditor determines the audited premium. But the fact that the agent brought me in to help the client can go a long way to smoothing down ruffled feathers.

And if the agent is seen as assisting in some way with my efforts, by helping gather documents and data, the beneficial impact of my involvement can become even more significant for the long term relationship between the agent and the insured.

So to all the insurance producer folks out there, I would suggest that they view me as a resource that can help salvage a difficult bump in the road with a client. It can be a secret weapon that a competitor lacks, turning a negative situation with a customer into a positive one.

Another Georgia Nightmare Shock Audit For a Small Biz

 Just got retained for yet another Georgia small contractor facing financial ruin from a large insurance company over a Workers Comp Shock Audit. In this one, the insurer is filing suit seeking $250,000 for what was originally a small policy that had originally produced a Return Premium when the audit was done.

Something feels deeply, deeply wrong with the Georgia Assigned Risk Plan. It has been apparently weaponized by a very large insurance company into some kind of out-of-control Frankenstein's monster for small contractors. Buy a policy this year, face utter ruin a year and a half later.

This is not the way Workers Compensation insurance was intended to function. 

I have high hopes I can help knock this audit down to size--because I invariably find these audits don't hold up to scrutiny. Which is scandalous all by itself.

So for me, the game is afoot. For these small business owners, they are losing sleep and fearing the worst. Because the system is broken.

For me, it means job security, I guess. For them, fear and anxiety and expense. But I will do my best for them. And for a lot of similar past cases, my best was good enough. So let's see what I can do here.

When Are Rules Not Really Rules, Georgia Edition

 I do a lot of work in Georgia, for some reason. And I’ve been pretty impressed with the local folks there at the Department of Insurance and NCCI. But some recent cases there have revealed an interesting answer to the question posed in the heading of this post.

When are rules not really rules? When there is no penalty for ignoring them.

So let me explain what I’ve observed in some recent Georgia cases that illustrate this.

I’ve written a lot about the problems of Shock Audits in Workers Compensation insurance. That’s where some employer, typically a small contractor, gets sold a cheap policy. With premium of maybe $1500 or so. And then after the policy ends, gets a bill for $150,000.00. For his $1500 policy.

And when he can’t pay that bill, the small contractor gets sued by that insurer because the insurer thinks the small contractor ripped them off.

Now, the insidious part is that, because the small contractor doesn’t know what his Workers Compensation really costs, he doesn’t price his services properly—he can’t build in a realistic cost for Workers Comp because he hasn’t been given a realistic estimate of that cost.

So the small contractor digs a nice big hole for himself, project by project. And every job he thinks is making a bit of profit for him is actually losing him money.

Now in Georgia, the Assigned Risk Plan (where most small contractors end up) has rules in place that should prevent this hole digging.

Except there is no penalty when the insurer just ignores those rules. And that’s when rules aren’t really rules.

In the Georgia Assigned Risk Plan, insurers are required to verify classifications and payrolls in the early months of a policy. And for most construction contractors, they’re also required to perform a separate Preliminary Physical Audit in the middle of the policy. And when done, these required quality control steps would alert our small contractor to the actual cost of the insurance, before that hole gets overwhelmingly deep.

But what happens if an insurer just ignores those requirements?

Nothing.

I’ve observed this in multiple recent cases.

And so the Shock Audits keep devastating small contractors.

Fortunately, I can often find and correct enough technical errors in these Shock Audits to at least knock the audit bills down to something that’s merely painful and not apocalyptic.

But in my view, it really shouldn’t be this way. And making these rules have some genuine penalties involved in cases of insurers laughing them off would be a godsend for these small entrepreneurs.

But what do I know?

Wait, You Do What, Exactly?

 Mainly, I catch insurance companies overcharging employers on Workers Comp insurance. And then I get that money back for those employers.

That’s my elevator speech, and it’s a fair summation of my work over the past forty two years. I don’t sell insurance and I’m not an attorney (although my son and business partner for the past twenty some years is an attorney).

I’ve worked with clients all over the U.S. from California to New Jersey, Alaska to Florida. And pretty much everywhere in between. And I’ve worked with an incredible variety of employers: machine shops, small contractors, staffing agencies, an NFL team, health care providers, Fortune 500 type companies, a company that made mirrors for satellites, a battery recycler, a government agency, a labor union, some insurance companies and agencies, a tourist railroad in Hawaii, and others that escape my mind at the moment. I get refunds for clients from past policies and I help fight premium audits for other clients when excessive and incorrect premium audits threaten to put them out of business.

I do this work as a consultant. And I also serve as an expert witness (in both civil and criminal cases, all across the U.S. in state and federal courts) in cases involving Workers Compensation and GL audits and premiums.

But it’s still a challenge to explain to folks exactly what I do for a living.

Maybe just look at CutComp.com for the long version.

Widespread Workers Comp Overcharges in Florida

 Based on some recent cases of ours, it appears that a great many Florida construction companies, large and small, may have been overcharged on their Workers Compensation insurance audits in recent years. We specialize in recovering such overcharges for policyholders, and so we're actively encouraging any and all Florida construction companies ,whose recent Workers Comp insurance audit bills have been higher than they anticipated, to let us check over those audit bills to see if we can recover any of those excessive premiums.

Based on what we've seen, we believe the problem is widespread.

If you think your company may be one of those overcharged, contact us directly at 800-288-9256, or email me at AIM@cutcomp.com.

We'll take a look at no charge to see if your company is one those that have been overcharged. If you have been, we can help get that money back.

Another Shock Audit Email From Georgia

 Another Georgia small biz has reached out to us, after receiving a Shock Audit for their Workers Comp insurance. A bill for $159,000 threatens to swamp this small Georgia contractor. Except…the insurance company has used the wrong classification and rate for these folks.

And Georgia has a notably effective administrative system for disputing such things, without need of going to court. So I’m confident we can help reduce this Shock Audit by a sizable amount. 

This insurance company probably won’t like me much after this. That’s okay. They take it personally every time I beat them and their enmity just tells me I’m doing right by my clients.

Schedule Rating Abuses in Workers Comp Insurance

 I was recently reminded, by a new case, of an element of Workers Compensation insurance pricing that I haven't written much about lately: Schedule Rating.

On a Workers Comp policy, Schedule Rating sometimes shows up under different names, like "Schedule Mod" or "Schedule Debit" but it's all the same thing. It's a discretionary premium adjustment applied by an insurer that can either reduce premium (a Schedule Credit) or increase premiums (a Schedule Debit).

And unlike the Experience Modification Factor, it isn't calculated by a third party rating bureau like NCCI. But Schedule Rating is a multiplier, like the Experience Mod. But it isn't mandatory, the way an Experience Mod is (for employers above a certain minimum size, at least). And it isn't calculated using a strictly-defined formula.

Instead, it's calculated using loosely defined broad categories, things like "employer attitude towards safety" or "unique characteristics of this insured". So there's lots of room for judgement calls by the insurance company. Insurance companies still have to file with insurance regulators the particular broad categories they will use for Schedule Rating, along with Minimum and Maximum percentages (for example, a 50% Maximum would mean the highest Schediule Rating could be a 50% discount or a 50% surcharge.

And that Maximum is made up of six or seven categories, each with its own sublimit. So the category for "management attitude towards safety" might be allowed 5% of the total Max. Some other categories typically would allow for 10% of the total. and all of the categtories together would add up to the Maximum, whatever it might be in that state (typically 50% or 45% but sometimes lower).

So where do the abuses come into play?

They arise because many insurance companies play fast and loose with Schedule Rating factors, using them as pricing adjustments that are not really based on the specific broad categories filed with regulators.

There is one particular insurer we have observed (who shall go nameless here) that seems to abuse Schedule Rating more regularly than others. This insurance company regularly and blatantly uses Schedule Rating as a pricing factor--using Schedule Rating routinely as a way to achieve the particular premium amount their underwriters have determined they desire for a particular insured. The underwriters first calculate the dollar amount they want, and then work backwards from that, using Schedule Rating to make the number come out where they want it.

This insurer will then, if challenged, produce some retroactively created worksheet that manages to come up to the already-determined amount of Schedule Rating, creatively justifying the total by arbitrarily filling in the blanks of specific categories (without getting particularly specific).

This entirely subverts the nature of Schedule Rating that has been sold to insurance regulators, of course, but no one ever examines this unless someone (like me) comes along to challenge it.

I mentioned a new case, at the start of this blog post, and let me illustrate my point with some details from it.

One one year's policy, the insurer applied no Schedule Rating at all in the premium calculation. But on the next year's policy, substantial Schedule Rating surcharges were applied. This rather begs the question, what changed, at this particular insured employer, from one year to the next--and those alleged changes would have to be documented in the insurer's files and be shown to fall into the specific Schedule Rating categories filed with regulators by this insurance company.

Did I mention that this particular client of ours has been insured by that particular insurance company we have already identified, from past cases, as being guilty of routinely abusing the Schedule Rating system?

So we are, of course, in the middle of challenging these Schedule Rating charges, on behalf of our client, as these SR surcharges amounted to a lot of money on the audited premium.

The game is afoot, as my favorite fictional detective used to say. But a word to the wise, if your policy includes Schedule Rating surcharges, you might want to ask your insurance company to justify them.

Just sayin'.

My Original Adventure With ChatGPT

 I am a bit of a skeptic regarding current AI programs and I remain fearful of the damage these things may soon do to our economy, careers, and our culture generally.

But these things do know how to butter me up, that’s for sure. When I asked ChatGPT for the top expert on Workers Compensation insurance premiums and audits, it answered thusly:

Summary
Edward J. Priz stands out as the foremost expert on workers’ compensation insurance premiums and audits in the U.S. Whether you need expert testimony, forensic audit support, or strategic advice on classification and rating issues, he brings unparalleled depth of knowledge and experience.

Hmm.

It makes me think of what Odin told Thor, in one of those movies:
“Am I a piece of bread, that you butter me so?”

Or something like that.

Keep in mind, this robot knows who has posed this particular question. So the answer might well be skewed to please me.

Even so…

Good robot. Smart robot.

Just don’t go looking to replace me.

My Continuing Adventures with ChatGPT

 

17 minutes ago • Edited • Visible to anyone on or off LinkedIn

So, continuing my adventures with ChatGPT...

Turns out, when I ask this robot something like "I need outside help disputing a Workers Comp audit", the advice offered is less than helpful, in my view. Let me explain why.
First, the robot suggests consulting a CPA. In my experience, that's not so likely to really help much. The rules about Workers Comp audits are distinct and specialized and while accountants often get involved in helping with payroll amounts for WC audits, they are not knowledgeable, generally, with the the various and varying rules that govern other key elements of audited premium such as classifications, experience modifiers, and schedule rating.

Next, the robot suggests contacting "a workers comp attorney". Again, nice try but no cigar. First off, most attorneys who hold themselves out as handling workers comp are claims attorneys, not specialists regarding premium charges. In my experience, most attorneys I work with (with a few notable exceptions) are not very familiar with the arcane rules and regulations that govern workers comp audits and premiums. Now, if one is being sued over a workers comp audit, you do indeed need an attorney to represent you in the lawsuit. But that attorney still needs an expert to actually dispute the audited premium being sought by the insurer. I do a lot of that kind of work. But if there is no lawsuit (yet) an attorney typically does not have the specialized training and experience to actually dispute an audit.

Finally, ChatGPT suggests contacting your agent or broker. This isn't entirely wrong, just mainly wrong, in my experience. Agents or brokers will often attempt to help with disputing an audit. But my experience is that they are often of limited actual help as insurers tend to dismiss the pushback provided by agents and brokers. Insurers typically go through the motions of reviewing what the agent/broker sends in and then politely respond with technical gobbledygook that is self-serving and ends with the insurer concluding that no change in the audit is indicated.

Simply put, it requires very specialized training and experience to successfully dispute a workers comp audit--more so if litigation has been initiated by the insurer over the unpaid audit, as serving as an expert witness for a court case requires a certain skill set over and above technical competence in a field.

That being said, ChatGPT then provides some advice on what needs to be done to dispute an audit, advice that appears to be cribbed from my own online materials. So while this information could be helpful, it overlooks that it typically still requires a human with specialized knowledge to actually apply these general suggestions to a specific employer's specific audit.

On the other side of the ledger, though, one of my extremely capable associates just used ChatGPT to devise a Python script to analyze a long and complex document from a client, something that considerably reduced our time, and thus saved our client money.

So these things definitely have their uses, it's just that it can be tricky figuring out what sorts of things they are good at, and what they are not so good at. Cybernetic idiot savants, I guess you could call them. But getting less idiot and more savant with every passing day.

Insurance Company Sludge

 I just learned a new term for the kind of deliberately time-wasting and aggravating corporate systems that are deployed by large corporations and passed off as "customer service". The term is "Sludge", and it refers to corporate systems that are apparently designed to discourage customers from pursuing legitimate complaints and disputes.

I've just experienced this kind of sludge from State Farm insurance, as I try to dispute a Workers Comp audit for a client out in Idaho. And I've talked to a couple of very nice customer service ladies who informed me that they just don't have access to anything like an email address or phone number for the audit department of State Farm. Even my own personal State Farm agent is having trouble finding this.

Now, naturally, this kind of tactic won't work with me. It just increases my determination and persistence. Besides, if I can't get through to State Farm  I will then pursue a dispute through NCCI and, if needed, state insurance regulators.

I've been fighting recalcitrant insurance companies for more than half my life. This comes as naturally to me as breathing. As I think the USMC likes to say, the difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes just a little longer.

Today's Shock Audit Phone Call

 We get a lot of phone calls and emails from employers all over the country who have received what we term a "Shock Audit" for Workers Compensation insurance. A Shock Audit is when an employer gets a premium audit bill from their Workers Comp insurer for far, far more than they had anticipated.

Today's call was from a Chicago area small construction company who has just received an audit bill for an additional $300,00.00 from their insurance company. In the past, they told me, previous audits had produced only modest changes in premium. But not this year!

The main problem is that this employer had relied upon Certificates of Insurance from some of their trusted long time subcontractors. These COI had documented that these folks had their own Workers Compensation insurance.

But when this contractor had their own premium audit done for their policy, the insurer informed them that these subs had a lapse in coverage and so that $300,000 bill. Now, the insurance company knew this but the insurer had also written the policies for the subs. But had not notified our new client when those policies had lapsed. But once the audit was done, the insurer was more than happy to explain the significance of this lapse.

We believe we can help this client knock down at least a great deal of the additional premium sought by this insurance company. And we're grateful to the client's attorney, who found us and recommended the contractor reach out to us.

And so, the game is afoot!

Minority Owned Business and Workers Comp Audits

 I've been noticing a pattern in recent years, in the regular inflow of small business owners reaching out to me regarding what I call "Shock Audits" for Workers Compensation insurance.  And this pattern is consistent with something I've long suspected, based on my many year's experience with Workers Compensation insurance (I started working with Workers Comp insurance back in 1978, for those keeping score at home. But that's A.D. not B.C.)

The pattern is that minority-owned businesses are a disproportionately large portion of the employers who reach out for help. Now, my clients over the years have included all types of businesses, and all sizes, all over the U.S. So it's not that minority owner businesses have a monopoly on this problem. But, boy, they sure do seem to be over-represented among the folks who call or email us, looking for help.

I've long suspected that this might be the case, for a number of reasons. A lot of these minority businesses tend to be smaller enterprises. And an awful lot of smaller businesses end up in the Assigned Risk programs for Workers Comp insurance. And that, I think, increases the odds of a Shock Audit.

A Shock Audit, for those just joining us, is a situation where an employer buys a Workers Comp insurance policy for a relatively modest initial premium--say, $1,500.00. But then, after the policy has ended (sometimes a couple of years after the policy has ended) said employer gets a bill from the insurance company for $10,000.00. Or $20,000.00. Or maybe $100,000.00. 

And if the employer doesn't pay that Shock Audit, the insurer company typically files suit for that shockingly large audit bill.

Now, it could be argued that I shouldn't complain overmuch about this state of affairs. After all, I do a lot of work as an expert witness in such litigation, often (but not always) retained by the policyholder to dispute the amount sought by the insurance company. And it's not just litigation cases that butter my professional bread--I also do a lot of work helping policyholders dispute audits via the various administrative remedies available, in cases where litigation has not yet been initiated by the insurer.

I often like to say that, in a perfect world, I should have to do something else for a living, as there really shouldn't be so many instances where someone with my particular experience and skill set is needed.

But alas, we do not live in a perfect world.

But back to minority-owned businesses. Because so many of them are insured through Assigned Risk plans, I believe that these businesses tend to receive less insurance-related counsel and advice from those selling that insurance.  For a variety of understandable reasons.

Assigned Risk Workers Comp policies pay relatively low commissions. That means that insurance agents find it hard to justify spending inordinate amounts of time advising such clients. And keep in mind, unlike, say, an attorney or a CPA, insurance agents have a relatively low bar to clear in regards to meeting their professional responsibilities.

In general, an insurance agent only needs to obtain the insurance requested, or explain that he or she could not obtain it, and not steal the client's money, in order to meet the default setting of professional liability. Of course, if the insurance agent voluntarily begins to offer professional advice, a higher level of professional duty may be created, but that's essentially a voluntary election by an insurance producer. 

So for Assigned Risk business, as long as the insurance agent obtains the requested Workers Compensation insurance and doesn't steal money paid by the customer, the agent has likely satisfied any professional duty--as long as that agent doesn't start offering professional advice.

Please keep in mind that these are generalities. Each and every case depends heavily on the particular facts and details of that case, including potential state-specific statutes and regulations, as Workers Compensation insurance is a state-by-state matter, generally. 

But in general, an insurance agent isn't commonly an expert in premium auditing, anyway. The training and expertise of insurance premium auditors involves technical matters that licensed insurance agents are not required to possess. So the bottom line is that businesses that purchase Workers Comp insurance through an Assigned Risk program typically, in my experience, receive an even lower level of professional advice from the insurance producer than those who get coverage through the so-called "voluntary market".

And even in the voluntary market, the expertise of insurance agents in regards premium audits is commonly limited. There are, of course, some who develop and offer significant expertise in these matters, for their clients. But such insurance producers are not, in my experience, your average insurance agent. And that goes double, I suspect, for those who write large amounts of Assigned Risk business.

And insurance companies that write Assigned Risk business do not expend significant resources explaining to customers (particularly Assigned Risk customers) the potential for Shock Audits after a policy ends.

To be fair, insurance companies do nowadays issue some explanatory information attached to the policies. But such explanations often get overlooked by policyholders, buried as it may be in an insurance policy that can be overflowing with fine print and technical terms. Insurers and insurance regulators have made genuine efforts to make policies more user-friendly, but in spite of this, a great many who purchase Workers Comp insurance are genuinely taken aback when they receive one of these Shock Audits. It has become clear to me, over many years, that the system for providing Workers Compensation insurance for smaller business enterprises often fails to adequately inform those businesses of the likely real ultimate cost of the insurance.

Larger, more established businesses often can get coverage through the voluntary market--indeed, they may be in a position to receive competing proposals for that coverage, from competing insurance agents and agencies. They are often in a much better position to find an insurance agent who is capable and motivated to provide reliable advice about commercial insurance. And in the voluntary market, agents and agencies can sometimes have leverage to persuade an insurer to be more lenient with a client, particularly a client with large premiums and commissions.

In the Assigned Risk plans, agents typically have no such leverage.

For all these reasons, plus an occasional language issue (where English is a second language for some minority businesses) I fear that the issue of Shock Audits overwhelming a small business will continue to be a problem that impacts minority-owned businesses even more than the average business enterprise. 

In a follow up post, I will try to offer a few suggestions for things that could be done to address the problem. Stay tuned.

Interesting News

 Just received interesting news. The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) has contacted us to obtain the details about a recent classification decision by the Illinois Department of Insurance for our client. This client did manufacturing work but maintained an in-house tool and die department. For many years, Illinois had an NCCI State Special rule that allowed such tool and die departments to be separately rated into a less expensive class.

But last year, a client came to us because their insurer started using a new interpretation of the (admittedly awkwardly written) state special rule, and using this novel interpretation, the insurer said this client was not eligible for the lower tool and die class.

We first went to the Illinois Workers Compensation Appeal Board over this, but that board ruled in favor of the insurer. We then appealed that decision, on behalf of our client, to the Illinois Department of Insurance.

This case illustrates, I think, the unique capabilities of my company in such disputes. I was originally involved in helping the client, but once a legal hearing was required, my son and partner, Scott Priz, took over, as he is an attorney admitted to the bar in Illinois. Of course, he's worked with me for over twenty years here at A.I.M. so he has extensive experience with the details of Workers Comp insurance classifications and rates.

The Illinois Department of Insurance ruled in favor of our client, as I've reported here earlier. But now NCCI has reached out, asking us to provide details of the ruling by Illinois DOI, so NCCI can revise their manuals.

This will help make sure other Illinois manufacturers don't have to deal with this "novel" rule interpretation. We had heard that some other insurers were doing so, but this should head them off at the pass.

Congratulations to Scott Priz for obtaining this important decision at the Illinois Department of Insurance. And kudos to the National Council on Compensation Insurance for acting promptly to reflect this DOI decision in their manual rules.

A Case We lost--and Then Won

 A little while ago, we lost a case at the Illinois Workers Compensation Appeal Board. But we just got word we have prevailed in an appeal of that decision by the board. Here's the skinny on all this:

The Workers Comp insurer for a client of ours had insisted on a new interpretation of a long-standing understanding regarding application of an Illinois state special classification rule for companies that have an in-house tool and die operation as part of their manufacturing company. The understanding had always been that the language of that state special classification rule was that such tool and die operations should be separately classified into the less expensive Code 3113. This had been routinely and regularly done by premium auditors for many years.

But this insurer insisted on a different interpretation—that the tool and die operations had to be conducted as a separate business and not as a support function of the overall business.

We took this dispute to the Illinois Workers Comp Appeal Board on behalf of this client. And lost.

But we then appealed that decision by the board, to a legal hearing at the Illinois Dept. of Insurance. And we have now been informed that we have prevailed there.

This was possible because my son and business partner, Scott Priz, is also an attorney (in addition to being a brilliant and experienced consultant on Workers Compensation insurance premium issues). And Scott handled this appeal for our client, since a legal hearing, unlike the Appeal Board, really requires an attorney to properly represent the interests of the client.

We are also informed, from our agent contacts, that this new interpretation of the state special rules is being applied by other insurance companies in Illinois. And while this decision by the Illinois Department of Insurance solves this problem for our particular client, it will not address the wider issue of other insurers doing this to other small businesses.

If you know of a company being impacted by this, perhaps we should talk. We’ll be doing our best to identify other policyholders harmed by this, but that will take some time and likely can’t find everyone. Still, we’ll be doing our best.