COI's - WC

[Billy Welsh]

I thought I knew a fair amount about insurance given the time I spent in the industry.  Having left the dark side for the ever darker world or telecom, I am constantly reminded that I could have learned so much more (in my "spare time," of course).

With respect to the "ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE/OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?" in the WC section, do you put anything if the client is operating OUTSIDE of NH?  This is the 2014/01 version, which is coming from TAM Online (it really is a small world, and I cannot get away from A$), and there is the "(Mandatory in NH)" caveat below this printed question.

Our agent has been filling this out, I guess because it is there and we have members who are not covered because they are not actively employed.  We would prefer to leave it blank.

[Jim Jensen]

interesting question. E&O carriers would likely say, "yes, input anyone excluded". Producers would say "no, never.", carriers would probably say "we don't care, put whatever you want there, as long as it is not incorrect (inputting "none" if some are would be incorrect)". I would probably say, 'it depends....' In your case if they are inactive employees, like a spouse that's a corporate officer, but never works there, or a retired person who's still collecting a salary and excluded, I probably wouldn't for most Certificates. I would leave it blank. If providing a COI for relationships that don't really involve WC, like sending one to a lessor, I would consider it irrelevant and leave it blank. However, for contracting risks that have employee(s) excluded that are involved in the work, (like maybe the owner)...great question - could be an issue of being tougher to retain the account by doing so.

[Billy Welsh]

The owner in question is NEVER working on any project, and he does not draw any salary.

Thus, in my mind, filling this out in a contacting situation just raises questions/flags for a non-issue.  All EE's including owners who are actively employed and who work on projects are covered.