​
​At some point, nearly every employer will have an employee report an injury and seek treatment under a workers compensation policy. Every US State has "industrial insurance" or workers compensation laws that define the benefits payable to the injured worker (NRS 616 in Nevada). The benefits afforded to an injured worker can vary from state to state. However, there is one critical concept to which every state agrees: to be covered by workers compensation insurance (or self-insurance) the employee injury or illness must arise out of and in the course and scope of employment.
To understand this concept further, let's examine the meaning of "arise out of and in the course and scope of employment". In simplistic terms this concept dictates that:

1. The injured employee was engaged in an activity that benefits the employer,
2. The injury occurred at the employer's location or a location mandated or reasonably expected by the employer,
3. The proximate cause of the injury was related to the occupation of the employee.

A few claim scenarios are helpful to understand when an employee injury becomes compensable under workers compensation coverage.  These are actual injury and claim scenarios that clients of Safeguard Insurance have reported over the years:
Claim Scenarios

1. An employee of an electrical contractor is dispatched to install ceiling fans at a customer's home.  The employee must stand on a ladder to install the fans. The ladder becomes unstable, tips over, and the employee suffers a broken arm in the fall.
2. An outside sales employee visits a local restaurant for his lunch break.  While in the restaurant, he slips on a wet floor and suffers a severe back injury.
3. A truck driver for a distribution company takes a break from his normal delivery route to do a little scenic site-seeing. While on this site-seeing excursion, the driver is involved in an auto accident and suffers injuries.
4. An outside sales employee meets clients at a local restaurant for a business meeting and lunch.   During the lunch meeting, he uses the restroom and slips and falls on the wet floor. He suffers a severe head and neck injury as a result of the fall.
5. Two employees that work in the same retail store become involved in a verbal argument over their favorite sports team. The employees decide to "settle the argument like men" and step outside to engage in a voluntary physical altercation. Both employees suffer severe bruising, sprains, and dental injuries.

Coverage Analysis
Using the "course and scope" rule we can examine each claim and determine if workers compensation coverage might apply:

1. This situation seems fairly uncomplicated. The employee was assigned a task for the benefit of his employer.  He was working at an expected location. How and why the ladder became unstable is probably not relevant to the employee receiving compensation benefits. In this case, workers compensation coverage should apply.
2. Generally speaking,  employees are not covered for injuries that occur while on a lunch break. This injury would likely not be covered by workers compensation.
3. The driver was injured in an auto accident, which is certainly within the scope of his occupation. However, his unauthorized site seeing excursion means he was no longer working for the benefit of his employer or at an expected location. It is very likely this claim would be denied coverage under a workers compensation policy.
4. This scenario also occurred during the employee's lunch break. That that employee was meeting with a customer and presumably discussing business opportunities changes the dynamic.  His lunch meeting was for the benefit of his employer. A sales meeting is certainly within the scope of his employment. This scenario would very likely be afforded coverage under a workers compensation policy.
5. Two employees that voluntarily engage in a physical altercation would be hard-pressed to claim their injuries arose from and are related to the course and scope of employment. This scenario would almost certainly warrant a denial of workers compensation benefits to both employees.

Keep in mind that not every employee injury and subsequent workers compensation claim is the same. Two scenarios that seem very similar on the surface may, in fact, have hidden details that change the outcome of the claim. For example, if an employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of an injury, coverage may be reduced or denied completely even if the scenario would otherwise warrant coverage. As a disclaimer, the above claim scenarios and analysis are meant to serve as a general overview of possible employee injuries and possible coverage decisions. They are not a conclusive narrative of coverage applicability for every situation.
Remember too that employers are protected by exclusive remedy laws. However, exclusive remedy does not preclude the injured employee from pursuing a claim against a third-party. For example, the electrical employee that fell from the ladder may pursue a defective product case against the ladder manufacturer. The employee that was injured by a slip and fall accident in a restaurant may pursue a premises liability claim. The errant driver on the site seeing excursion may have a valid auto liability claim against another driver. Lastly, the two employees that punched-out their differences may file lawsuits against each other for personal injury.

For more information contact Ryan Dye at: ryan@safeguardme.com 

Congratulations to DC Building Group for receiving NAIOP Spotlight’s General Contracting Firm of the Year Award for 2017. The 20th Annual NAIOP Southern Nevada Chapter Spotlight Awards were held on the evening of Saturday, March 4th, 2017 at the Red Rock Casino, Resort & Spa. The guests attire for the evening was based on the Roaring 20s to celebrate the 20th Annual NAIOP Spotlight Awards.

The attendees waited in anticipation until nearly the end of the evening to hear who would be named the General Contracting Firm of the Year. Once the NAIOP Southern Nevada Chapter Spotlight Industry Award Nominees for General Contracting category were listed, the audience waited in suspense with only this prelude hint as the host read: “This firm continues to grow and impress due to their quality of work and level of professionalism.” Before hearing “and the General Contracting Firm of the Year goes to DC Building Group!” Team representatives who accepted the award on behalf of the entire DCBG team were: Shawn Danoski, Gary Siroky, Dave Teator, Charlie Stewart and Jennifer Hall.

Shawn Danoski, CEO of DC Building Group, said, “Winning the NAIOP Spotlight Award for General Contracting Firm of the Year really means a lot because of the timing. Receiving this accolade now from such a high-caliber peer group is a testament to our firm’s successful growth and direction. This award reflects our aim to increase our capacities and recognizes our team for their dedication and solidarity.”
​
DC Building Group also received multiple Spotlight Merit Awards from NAIOP for these projects: Goodwill Retail Store and Donation Center, Cracker Barrel – North Las Vegas, Guy Fieri’s El Burro Borracho in Rio Hotel and Casino, JS Products Corporate Offices and Distribution Center, M&Ms World Las Vegas Renovation at Showcase Mall, Southern Hills Baptist Church.

​After months of a nationwide search, you finally identified the ideal property your client wants to invest in.  The property satisfies your client’s wish list representative of the right location, cap rate, tenant, lease terms and the 10 other factors you have no control over.  

​Following weeks of grueling contract negotiations a purchase agreement for the out-of-state property has finally been executed and contingencies have all been met or waived. Now the only hurdle is wading through the unfamiliar out-of-state closing customs, real estate practices and statutory requirements that can make all the difference between a routine versus nightmarish closing experience.
 
To avoid the inherent challenges of dealing with out-of -state closers who do not know you or your client, are unaware or even worse, do not care what you’re best practice closing procedures are- your solution is simple:  Select your local National Closing Team as your single point of contact. There is no need to re-create a system that works locally when your business is placed with a team that you can trust and rely upon.
 
What is a National Closing Team?

• They can escrow and close both your local and out of–state transactions utilizing the same individuals and closing process that you and your client are accustom to.

 

• The ideal National Closing Team is comprised of at least one: (i) Escrow/Closing Officer; (ii) Marketing Specialist; (iii) Title Officer; and (iv) Underwriter.  Having a team of seasoned professionals engaged that streamlines title and escrow functions into a single process minimizing issues that could cause potential delays for your closing.

 

• A National Closing Team has decades of experience in closing real estate transactions throughout the United States.

 

• One phone call to your National Closing Team is all it takes for all necessary title and escrow processes to be arranged.

 

• Your client’s preferred practices are established through an initial kickoff meeting with your closing team to establish standard operating practice and delivery deadlines.

 

• Your closing team is part of a national company that has operations throughout the United States and can issue a title insurance policy for any of their title insurance affiliated companies. The policy obtained by your client can be relied upon and is further supported by substantial claim reserves that will insure that if there is ever a loss, it can be compensated based on the amount of the company’s claim reserves.

 

• Your National Closing Team is able to refer you and your client to ancillary services that may be required to close the transaction: a survey, appraisals, exchanges, flood certifications and UCC Policies.  

 
 
Fidelity National Title and its family of title insurers is the largest commercial insurer in the United States.  Utilizing Fidelity National Title’s local National Closing Office and its family of title insurers is the easiest and quickest way of assuring a phenomenal out-of-state closing experience.
 
 
Fidelity National Title | National Closing Specialists
 
Ron Bloecker, Senior Underwriter
Jennifer Hubbard, Senior Escrow Officer
Tania Box, Senior Title Officer
Chancey White, Commercial Services
Phone: (702) 877-3003

​The past year has been remarkable for commercial real estate in Las Vegas. It has seen the noticeable recovery of a market that, less than a decade prior, politicians, industry experts, business owners and analysts believed might never bounce back.

It’s no secret that diversification is the key to growth and a strong economy. It opens doors to opportunities that spur more business. A number of East Coast retailers are starting to see the Las Vegas market as a viable business option, and the proof is in the pudding.
The first indicator of steady growth is that retailers are moving into the valley. There have been many this year, but a few big franchises include: Cracker Barrel, Amazon, Chick-fil-A and Dave & Buster’s.

The growth of the past two years also has affected the tourist and gaming corridor, with the construction of T-Mobile Arena, the potential NFL stadium and the new Park Theater at the Monte Carlo. What was once a 2-mile stretch focused on casinos and gambling is becoming an entertainment district.

The industrial market seems to have had a distinctive and continual effect on the industry, with developers constructing large industrial and warehouse facilities without necessarily having a tenant. That was not feasible even five years ago; it was just too risky.

The current boom is reminiscent of the golden age of real estate, from 2000 to 2004. While we may never again see the kind of heyday building of that time, the current dwindling industrial and retail space in the valley is a sign that we’re heading in the right direction. There’s more demand for space than space available.

The second half of this year has seen an increase in the need and desire for industrial properties. There seems to be significant activity completed and planned for commercial warehousing and industrial space. This industrial boom may be a result of the reinvigorated residential market. People making their home in Las Vegas equates to need for businesses to expand and diversify.

Still, there have been difficulties and setbacks with some projects. Investment in startup projects has been risky business in 2016, as we have seen with the recent suspensions of the Faraday and Alon projects. There also has been substantial lag in the construction process of the Resorts World project.

The coming year promises continued spec development and businesses trying their hand in the valley, including Del Taco, which previously had not committed to any new development since 2006. The chain is slated to bring multiple new stores to the valley.

With business diversification soaring here, the development and spec retail boom is sure to continue well into the next several years, and that’s good for all Nevadans.
​
Dave Teator is vice president of operations for DC Building Group.

There are too many painful stories about individual and corporate retirement funds facing severe funding deficits due to historically low interest rates on bonds. As a consequence, many fund managers have turned to commercial real estate investments as one of the few assets classes offering attractive risk-adjusted cash flow returns.
​
While these investments offer yields at a premium to Treasuries and a lower volatility than equities, they do require thoughtful due diligence prior to investment and careful monitoring throughout the investment life. Whether you invest yourself or with a fund manager specializing in commercial real estate, consider the following guidelines to protect your commercial real estate investments and to survive multiple economic cycles.

​READ FULL ARTICLE

Landlords and building owners commonly require tenants to name them as additional insured. The additional insured endorsement, along with the lease indemnity agreement, are designed to protect the building owner from liability claims that result from the tenant’s activities. In recent years, the additional insured endorsement commonly issued to landlords (ISO CG2011) has undergone several revisions.  These revisions could limit the scope of coverage afforded to landlords and are important to understand.

The latest version of the ISO CG2011 was issued in 2013 and, as respects the landlord as an additional insured, reads as follows:

1. A.  Section II – Who is an Insured is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to [the named insured] and shown in the Schedule and subject to the following additional exclusions:

This insurance does not apply to:

1. Any "occurrence" which takes place after [the named insured] ceases to be a tenant in that premises.
2. Structural alterations, new construction or demolition operations performed by or on behalf of the [additional insured].

However:

1. The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and
2. If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured.

1. B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section III – Limits of Insurance:

 
If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance:

1. Required by the contract or agreement; or
2. Available under the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations;

 
Whichever is less.
 
The verbiage added in 2013 is underlined. A careful reading of this revised wording will reveal a few potential issues for landlords and building owners. Under the 2013 form, the landlord is afforded coverage no broader that what is required by contract (the lease).  And, the limit of coverage available to the landlord is no more than what is required in the lease, even if the tenant carries higher limits.
 
We recommend several best practices to help building owners protect themselves from liability claims that occur on the property:

1. Tenants should provide a certificate of insurance and a copy of the actual additional insured endorsement to the landlord. A certificate of insurance alone is not adequate proof that the tenant’s policy has been properly endorsed to include coverage for the building owner.
2. An attorney should carefully review the lease agreement to ensure there is no limiting language that could restrict coverage under the 2013 edition of the CG2011.
3. Building owners and landlords should always purchase a general liability policy (or property and liability package) separate from any coverage provided by the tenant(s). 

 
The 2013 revisions to the landlord additional insured endorsement only underscore the importance of carefully drafting lease documents, especially the indemnity clause and insurance requirements.
Link to CG2011 04/13