Explanation:
Both claims involving dual capacity and third-party overrepresentation are eligible for coverage under employer's liability insurance, but not under workers' compensation. When an employee sues a third party for her injuries, third-party-over coverage is applicable. Dual capacity claims entail an injured employee suing his company in addition to filing a workers' compensation claim, through a product liability lawsuit.
Explanation:
To be eligible for benefits under an employer's liability insurance, an employee must demonstrate that his or her employer was negligent in order to sustain an injury at work. For workers' compensation, which often does not need the establishment of fault, this is an exception to the rule. In situations where employees are not protected by workers' compensation legislation, employers' liability coverage is used.
Explanation:
One of the two claims covered by an employer's liability insurance is dual capacity. Dual capacity claims enable an employee to pursue coverage through workers' compensation payments as well as legal action against her employer for the injury she suffered. The employee would not only be suing the employer for being her employer and being hurt at work but also in a product liability claim.
Explanation:
After a loss, one of the insured's responsibilities is to help the insurance company out with any paperwork or evidence of loss requirements. However, the insured must refrain from interfering with the subrogation procedure or risk being held liable for whatever money the carrier might have been able to recover from the negligent party.
Explanation:
By telling his insurance company a lie in order to get money for a new computer, Taylor engaged in a moral hazard. Taylor lied to make money off of his fire loss even though he knew his actions were wrong. If a moral hazard is discovered, the insurance provider may decide to completely reject the claim or pay much less than the full amount of the claim.
Explanation:
Both parties are required to abide by the arbitrator's ruling in binding arbitration. Some states mandate this kind of arbitration in order for the claim to be resolved.
Explanation:
The "winning" in non-binding arbitration is not necessarily the outcome; both parties are free to reject the arbitrator's decision. However, the "winner" will have the advantage of being able to claim victory at upcoming hearings before an arbitrator or court appearances.
