To you solo operators out there, do you carry Workers' Compensation Insurance on yourselves? Is it required in your state to have it? What benefits does it provide to a solo operator? Does it act as additional health and disability coverage on top of what you already have? Thanks,
I don't think Workers Comp pertains to sole proprietors -- if you get injured on the job, your personal health insurance covers the medical expense. (If you're solo but incorporated, you're an employee and Workers Comp would be required, I would think.)
In CA there's an elective disability insurance option available through the state. I carried it for several years, but found it to be very expensive with very modest benefit potential, so I dropped it.
I was required to have it when providing solo sub-contract work in another state, even though I could not collect on it. I had the option of obtaining my own policy or separately paying the contractor against his policy. The latter was less paper work and essentially the same cost to me.
It was some time ago so I may have some facts scrambled.
Paul in PA
I had it up until this month. I was/am a sole proprietor, but paid the extra (small) premium to cover myself in the even that I was injured on the job. Technically I could have gotten an exemption, but I was chasing, and landing, larger projects as a solo firm, and I was required to carry it by some of the larger firms (construction, international engineering firms, etc,). The contracts I was able to secure made it worth it in my case.
I do know for a fact I was covered because I revisited that every year at renewal with my agent.
Pain in the tookus (spelling?). Stupid is as stupid does---in my opinion.
In Oklahoma (as a corporation) I am required to carry WC on all employees, even myself. Here's the funny part; it is against the law for me to file a claim against myself as the owner of the corporation, but it is against the law for me to NOT provide myself coverage. The process is confusing and convoluted, but if I am injured on the job I must sue my own company and the provider to receive any benefits.
Basically this allows the courts to control a situation where someone could create a company, purchase a policy and then claim an injury...just to milk the system.
I thought the whole point of having workers compensation insurance was to make it where your company wouldn't get sued in the first place.
that would be tuchus......
paden cash, post: 342348, member: 20 wrote: Basically this allows the courts to control a situation where someone could create a company, purchase a policy and then claim an injury...just to milk the system.
I don't know how it works in OK, but in CA they reformed the workers comp system years ago, and "milking the system" isn't something that happens anymore. Claims are rigorously -- one might say punitively -- investigated, and settlements are very modest.
I have a brother-in-law who injured his back on the job. 10 years of being barely able to walk, 3 surgeries, a full-time back brace, a handful of other therapies and one narcotic detox later the case settled. I think he got a small disability pension -- not enough to live on, but combined with SSI and a small company pension he can keep the bills paid if he's careful -- and a lump-sum medical treatment fund of around $100K. He was around 56 at the time of the settlement, so that $100K has to last a long time. He's under a doctor's care, so the fund is slowly being drawn down. It looks like pretty sour milk to me.
Jimmy Cleveland, post: 342327, member: 91 wrote: ...and I was required to carry it by some of the larger firms (construction, international engineering firms, etc,).
In NC, solo operators have a statutory (I believe it's codified) exemption. However, the larger corporate clients I've worked with absolutely require it.
At first, I resisted and brought another firm in that I could sub-1/ sub-2 from. That worked but, when the next call came with the same requirement, I realized, if I would have just bit the bullet the first time, I would have been well-enough ahead from the start (the fee to my sub-1 was higher than the initial premium).
The sub-2 relationship went fine and I appreciate that this firm was willing to roll with me. Their fee was reasonable; just turned out that WC premium for my annual revenue was lower. I mention that because I am grateful to that firm. Helped me land one of my better fees to date and, later, they called me in on some overflow work that kept them on schedule and paid a respectable fee back to me.
On the WC paying me benefits if I get hurt, I have no idea. I picked it up to meet that check box on the corporate pre-qual tear sheet (and that is one thing that bothers me about life in today's USA).
