Purchase this story for only $7.99!
Add to CartFor access to all our articles, check out our subscription options.
May 5-8, 2024
Amplify Your Impact There’s no limit to what you can achieve when you join the global risk managem …
May 13-15, 2024
Join us May 13–15, 2024, for NCCI's Annual Insights Symposium (AIS) 2024, the industry’s premier e …
May 13-14, 2024
The Board of Managers is excited to announce that the CSIA 2024 Annual Meeting and Educational Con …
2 Comments
Log in to post a comment
Dec 7, 2017 a 3:17 pm PST
It's very simple. There are far more SIF claims than there were a few years ago. Whereas a handful of firms used to pursue SIF, now CAAA is giving seminars on the topic and seemingly every attorney knows the basics.
Frank Neuhauser Dec 7, 2017 a 3:12 pm PST
The first comment is half the explanation. Both applicant and defense attorneys are aggressively exploiting SIF by agreeing to settle cases, especially apportioned cases, just below the 70% threshold that would make the insurer liable for Life Pensions. Then the applicant's attorney uses the settlement (with "agreed" apportionment) as evidence of eligibility for a LP paid by SIF. A simple way for defense attorneys to lower the insurer's cost and applicants' attorneys to increase the settlement by placing large liabilities on SIF. This has been even easier to do since the 1.4 multiplier under SB863 replaced the lower multipliers (FEC) under SB899 . When the defense and applicant bars feign ignorance, it's disingenuous. SIF has become an extra pool of money both parties can use while taxing employers.