Search
Close this search box.

COVID-19 raises new risks, coverage needs for security firms

nyc-security-guards-COVID-19

COVID-19 raises new risks, coverage needs for security firms

Security officers have taken on more responsibilities to support pandemic precautions, resulting in new concerns that continue to linger.

The pandemic has raised new risk exposures and coverage questions for security firms and their insurance brokers to consider.

The COVID-19 pandemic spread uncertainty through businesses in every industry. Fortunately, the security industry adapted early with swift, decisive and flexible responses that allowed them to safely take on new responsibilities while also protecting front-line security officers.

However, as the pandemic continues, changing work environments have raised new risk exposures and coverage questions for security firms and their insurance brokers to consider.

The changing security market

Entering 2020, the security insurance market was already undergoing a challenging transition. Frequent, costly legal settlements had led to a hardening of the insurance market, bringing stricter underwriting guidelines, higher rates and premiums, and, in some cases, limited coverage offerings. The industry was in the midst of reassessing its risk profile and risk management practices to overcome this challenge.

Then COVID-19 emerged and confronted security firms with yet another critical obstacle: shutdowns of their workplaces. Business leaders worked quickly to keep serving clients while also protecting workers. They secured PPE and took on duties that the pandemic demanded. This meant everything from more patrol work to temperature screenings.

The strength of the security industry’s response to the pandemic was backed by 25 years of steady improvement in risk management practices. They adopted appropriate standards for guards, training practices and protocols, and partnered with brokers and insurers to become a safer industry overall. In short, they were ready, and their swift and informed response helped to keep the industry and its workforce both safe and on the job, supporting their communities.

Risk exposures and coverage concerns

As security officers began to take on more responsibilities to support pandemic precautions, new concerns arose and continue to linger in the industry, most notably with post orders.

Generally, if a security officer performs any duties outside of their specific post order, as specified in contracts with their clients, they risk being held liable for problems outside their control or performing services not covered by their policies. Taking on tasks such as sanitization or temperature checks likely not denoted in existing post orders, presented new risk exposures. We know many insurance professionals have fielded questions about this issue from clients.

Security firms can address this challenge by working with clients to either revise or establish new post orders to better reflect the depth of their workers’ current responsibilities, while also working with their local insurance professional to make sure there is insurance coverage for these new exposures. This would allow the officers to continue to support businesses adapting to the pandemic, while also being covered by their insurance policy.

Throughout the pandemic, security officers have been asked to handle temperature screening. However, since the temperature checks are intended to screen out symptomatic individuals, the security firm could be opening themselves up to claims that they “allowed” someone with COVID-19 into a building. As we all well know at this point, a healthy temperature reading does not guarantee the absence of the virus — a reality that needs to be addressed in the contract agreement between the security firm and the protected business.

Temperature screenings are a good example of when agents and brokers can talk to their clients about requesting a hold harmless waiver related to COVID-19. This waiver will confirm that the business is aware of the risks and potential harm they incur and that the security firm cannot fully limit the risk of COVID-19, even with temperature checks.

Temperature screening also creates coverage questions and concerns. Some commercial insurance programs for security professionals include incidental medical malpractice coverage, which is now more important than ever. That provides coverage for pandemic-related duties, such as temperature screenings, provided they establish that their work does not guarantee the absence of COVID-19.

In order to avoid tasking security officers with a pseudo-medical responsibility, security firms have also turned to contracted medical professionals to handle this work. True medical professionals are not covered under most security firms’ commercial policies, which means the firms would need to ensure these contractors have appropriate medical malpractice policies before performing work on behalf of the firm.

Similarly, sanitation work taken on recently by security officers raises concerns about coverage risk exposures. Of course, the post order issue remains a concern here, and security firms should review and revise their contracts as needed before adding any new responsibilities. This is another place where brokers can be particularly helpful, working with security firms to decide whether they are covered, and if not, if the insured wants to take on the work. Since sanitization work lies outside the scope of security duties, typically it would be excluded from a policy designed for a security firm. This means they may need a different policy to cover the work, under a separate ISO classification, likely for janitorial work.

Workers’ compensation considerations

In addition to new responsibilities, COVID-19 raised concerns about workers’ compensation exposures and employee safety. However, as I described above, security firms have responded quickly and efficiently to protect their officers who were still working. One of the leading factors in the security industry’s successful response was their immediate prioritization of providing officers with access to PPE and other needed tools to continue working in a safe environment.

In the event a security officer does contract COVID-19, what should their response be? The officer should immediately notify their employer and seek medical attention, if necessary, and isolate as instructed. The employer should then report to their workers’ compensation carrier so they can set up a file and perform a full investigation, including contact tracing, to determine compensability.

For businesses in all industries, COVID-19 has not only raised safety concerns but also struck a blow to their viability. Yet we have been reassured to see how many security firms were able to keep operating while protecting their employees and clients. If anything, this is a testament to the power of adopting a risk management mindset, and a reminder that all industries must continue to prioritize careful risk management going forward.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts

Insurance-technology

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More
Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote