June 7, 2010
Mike
Mooy
5 Things Everyone Should Know About Employee Insurance Benefits
by Mike Mooy
June 7, 2010
I recently met a new neighbour who told me he was the corporate counsel for a large company. When I explained my insurance connection to the legal profession, he quickly responded with “I have all the insurance I need through my benefits at work."
Before he could turn and run, I assured him I would not preach the virtues of buying insurance (unless he wanted to listen), but let him know I thought it was extremely important to have his coverage reviewed by an insurance expert to ensure he is adequately protected. In my experience, most people who rely on their employer for the majority of their insurance do so because they’ve never taken the time to understand the significant shortcomings typical of this type of insurance product.
Here are 5 things I think everyone should know about employee insurance benefits:
- Coverage limits are well below the actual needs of most lawyers.
Although the dollar maximums of a typical employee group Life or Long Term Disability insurance plan may sound generous, in most situations these limits are far better suited to the needs of lower income employees, not those of a lawyer.
- Significantly restricted contractual benefits when compared to individually owned policies for lawyers.
Except for very small employers, most insurers will offer insurance to all active employees even if their state of health would otherwise prevent them from owning insurance. To offset this claims risk, insurers impose contractual restrictions to significantly reduce or eliminate certain claims. This is particularly true of most employee Long Term Disability insurance benefits. Most personally owned, medically-underwritten policies will offer far more generous benefits to lawyers.
- Limited flexibility to address your unique needs.
It’s very unlikely that your insurance needs are exactly the same as everyone else in your company. However, the “one size fits all” design of most employee benefit plans means you share the same level of coverage as everyone with a similar position to yours.
- You could lose most or all of your insurance if you leave your job.
Most employee insurance benefits cannot be taken when you leave your job. If you have a health issue, you could be prevented from owning the same level of coverage you once had, or worse yet, you could be left with no insurance at all. While you may be able to find a new employer that can offer you similar benefits without proof of good health, it most certainly limits your employment options. What if you wanted to go into sole practice? Owning your own insurance takes part of the worry out of future changes to your health that could restrict your freedom to make personal career choices.
- You don’t control your coverage.
Unless you are responsible for the employee benefit decisions at your firm, you have no control over the design and cost of your insurance benefits. Decisions to reduce or even cancel the insurance plan can be made without the consent of employees not currently on claim.
Even if you are involved in your firm’s plan decisions, poor claims history can result in an insurer’s need to significantly increase rates or a refusal to renew the contract.
I am not against the idea of owning insurance benefits through an employer. I have worked with thousands of employee group plans over the years and this insurance can offer adequate protection for many people. However, those that benefit most from this coverage typically have modest insurance needs, lower incomes, or could not otherwise obtain insurance due to health issues. For a healthy lawyer with a good income, relying heavily on a typical employer insurance plan is not a necessity or an ideal financial protection strategy.
I strongly recommend that most lawyers consider supplementing their employer provided benefits with personally owned insurance. While it does require initial proof of good health, a well designed individually owned policy is contractually superior in nearly every way to an employer provided plan and may even be less expensive to own.
Please note that my advice is not intended to replace that of a qualified insurance expert who has personally reviewed your specific benefits and insurance needs. If you want to learn more, before speaking to an insurance agent, the Canadian Bar Insurance Association offers excellent insurance education articles and planning tools for lawyers at www.barinsurance.com.
I recently met a new neighbour who told me he was the corporate counsel for a large company. When I explained my insurance connection to the legal profession, he quickly responded with “I have all the insurance I need through my benefits at work."
Before he could turn and run, I assured him I would not preach the virtues of buying insurance (unless he wanted to listen), but let him know I thought it was extremely important to have his coverage reviewed by an insurance expert to ensure he is adequately protected. In my experience, most people who rely on their employer for the majority of their insurance do so because they’ve never taken the time to understand the significant shortcomings typical of this type of insurance product.
Here are 5 things I think everyone should know about employee insurance benefits:
- Coverage limits are well below the actual needs of most lawyers.
Although the dollar maximums of a typical employee group Life or Long Term Disability insurance plan may sound generous, in most situations these limits are far better suited to the needs of lower income employees, not those of a lawyer.
- Significantly restricted contractual benefits when compared to individually owned policies for lawyers.
Except for very small employers, most insurers will offer insurance to all active employees even if their state of health would otherwise prevent them from owning insurance. To offset this claims risk, insurers impose contractual restrictions to significantly reduce or eliminate certain claims. This is particularly true of most employee Long Term Disability insurance benefits. Most personally owned, medically-underwritten policies will offer far more generous benefits to lawyers.
- Limited flexibility to address your unique needs.
It’s very unlikely that your insurance needs are exactly the same as everyone else in your company. However, the “one size fits all” design of most employee benefit plans means you share the same level of coverage as everyone with a similar position to yours.
- You could lose most or all of your insurance if you leave your job.
Most employee insurance benefits cannot be taken when you leave your job. If you have a health issue, you could be prevented from owning the same level of coverage you once had, or worse yet, you could be left with no insurance at all. While you may be able to find a new employer that can offer you similar benefits without proof of good health, it most certainly limits your employment options. What if you wanted to go into sole practice? Owning your own insurance takes part of the worry out of future changes to your health that could restrict your freedom to make personal career choices.
- You don’t control your coverage.
Unless you are responsible for the employee benefit decisions at your firm, you have no control over the design and cost of your insurance benefits. Decisions to reduce or even cancel the insurance plan can be made without the consent of employees not currently on claim.
Even if you are involved in your firm’s plan decisions, poor claims history can result in an insurer’s need to significantly increase rates or a refusal to renew the contract.
I am not against the idea of owning insurance benefits through an employer. I have worked with thousands of employee group plans over the years and this insurance can offer adequate protection for many people. However, those that benefit most from this coverage typically have modest insurance needs, lower incomes, or could not otherwise obtain insurance due to health issues. For a healthy lawyer with a good income, relying heavily on a typical employer insurance plan is not a necessity or an ideal financial protection strategy.
I strongly recommend that most lawyers consider supplementing their employer provided benefits with personally owned insurance. While it does require initial proof of good health, a well designed individually owned policy is contractually superior in nearly every way to an employer provided plan and may even be less expensive to own.
Please note that my advice is not intended to replace that of a qualified insurance expert who has personally reviewed your specific benefits and insurance needs. If you want to learn more, before speaking to an insurance agent, the Canadian Bar Insurance Association offers excellent insurance education articles and planning tools for lawyers at www.barinsurance.com.
Respond: make a comment
Share: Email | Save as PDF | Print
| Bookmark & Share |
| 
More columns on Columns: Practice of Law | from Mike Mooy
|
the count:
8219 posts | 11403 comments
recent comments  
You should assess whether you can accept the financial risks associated with taking the matter, just as clients will assess whether they can (and will) pay your fee. Spend time at the beginning of the. […] »»Practice Today’s Tip is a simple reminder to view by “latest activity date”. The Parliament is back in session and those Slaw Tips readers for whom monitoring legislation is a regular … »»Research When everyone in the firm is required to report monthly to all other partners, you instill a culture in the firm that is self-correcting. If someone fails to regularly meet their financial goals, you. […] »»Practice
-
Available online today are four new chapters of the publication Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report, which explores the socio-demographic and economic circumstances of Canadian women in general.
-
The bill amends the Constitution Act, 1867 by readjusting the number of members and the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons.
-
-
Blueseed plans to buy a ship and turn it into a floating incubator anchored in international waters off the coast of California.
-
Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the flow of information out of Ottawa has slowed to a trickle.
-
-
"…the IPC has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a record is in the custody or control of a university in the context of an access request…"
-
-
John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. of Vancouver has been elected President for 2011-2012
-
Detailed results from 321 members.
These summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book.
More information.
-
Banks and Banking - Liability of banks to third parties - Negligence - General
The plaintiffs were the former shareholders of a company that failed. They sued the defendant bank alleging that it breached its contract with the company and the plaintiffs and breached a duty ...
-
Actions - Cause of action - General principles - New or extended cause of action - Opening of floodgates
The plaintiff and defendant worked at different branches of the same bank. The defendant’s common-law husband was the plaintiff’s ex-husband. Over a four year period, the defendant ...
-
Aliens - Definitions and general principles - Immigration consultants
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) had been designated as the sole regulatory body of immigration consultants in Canada from 2004 until June 2011. On June 30, 2011, Bill C-35 came into force, which significantly amended ...
-
Criminal Law - Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct - Public morals - Obscenity - Possession of child pornography
The accused was convicted of making child pornography available and two counts of possession of child pornography (see [2010] Sask.R. Uned. 197). Subsequently, he was sentenced ...
-
Criminal Law - Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices
Rowe was convicted by a jury of five offences. He appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed ...
-
Narcotic Control - Offences - Possession - General
The accused wished to access marijuana for medicinal purposes but did not have an authorization to possess marijuana issued under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations. He was notified that a package of marihuana addressed to him had been ...
-
Narcotic Control - General - Legislation - Exemptions - Medicinal marijuana
McCrady, who had an application pending under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) to possess and grow marijuana, was convicted of possession of marijuana (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), s. 4(1)). Hearn pleaded guilty ...
-
Criminal Law - Sentence - Trafficking in hashish or marijuana (incl. possession for purposes of trafficking)
The accused pleaded guilty to one count of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. He was sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment to be served intermittently and 11 months’ ...
-
Municipal Law - Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Imposition and collection of taxes or fees
Catalyst Paper Corp. operated a paper mill in the District of North Cowichan. Catalyst objected to the tax rate that it paid compared to residential ratepayers. In 2009, the ...
This is a listing of a few upcoming events in Canada of interest to lawyers, law students, legal librarians, and others involved in the practice of law.
Clicking on any event in the list below will give you access to more information and to links allowing you to see the full entry and to add the event to your own calendar.
Click this link for a fuller version of the TalkLaw/ParLoi calendar of events and for instructions as to how to add events and calendars to your own calendar.
|
