Monthly Archives: August 2010

by | August 21, 2010 · 8:50 am

Hotel Industry Risks: Hotel Managers And Employees Must Spot Prostitution And Drug Risks When Local Guests Book Rooms For One-Week Or More

Police have started a program to educate hotel employees on how to spot prostitutes and drugs. One warning sign” When a guest with local address books a hotel room for seven or eight days, the Inquirer says.

Hotel prostitution became a high-profile last year when a woman who had advertised erotic services in a Craigslist ad was beaten and fatally shot at close range at the Boston Marriott Copley Place. Police ultimately arrested Philip Markoff, a medical student who was dubbed the Craigslist Killer, for her killing and other robberies of women in hotels. Markoff committed suicide in jail earlier this week.

Crime has been climbing at airport hotels over the last six to eight months, and Capt. Dan MacDonald III says that it can be linked to prostitution.

“This violence has resulted in numerous robberies, assaults and one homicide all directly related to prostitution going on at Philadelphia airport hotels,” the Daily News quotes him as saying.

Philly isn’t alone in fighting prostitution activity in airport hotels

For more:   http://travel.usatoday.com/hotels/post/2010/08/philly-police-bust-airport-hotel-prostitution-ring/108959/1

Comments Off on Hotel Industry Risks: Hotel Managers And Employees Must Spot Prostitution And Drug Risks When Local Guests Book Rooms For One-Week Or More

Filed under Crime, Liability, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , , ,

by | August 20, 2010 · 5:40 am

Hospitality Industry Cybercrime Risk Management: “Cloud Computing” Providers Will Carry “Cyber Insurance To Mitigate The Risk Of Data Breaches Or Unexpected Downtime”

The manager of a fine hotel would never allow an electrician or plumber to work without being insured; it’s standard fare on service contracts in the physical world. Not so in cloud computing, where provider coverage in the form of cyber insurance is far from a given. This undoubtedly will change as businesses push providers to share the risks of a data breach or unexpected downtime, experts said.

Such large cloud computing providers as Salesforce.com Inc. do carry cyber insurance to mitigate the risk of data breaches or unexpected downtime, but “smaller providers are not carrying insurance and have no plan to [do so] until the larger customers push back and say, ‘You’re in our risk profile now,'” said Drew Bartkiewicz, vice president of technology and new media markets at The Hartford Financial Services Group, a cyber insurance company based in New York.

For the cloud computing model to work, cloud customers, as well as cloud providers, need to share the risk, according to Drue Reeves, director of research for the Burton Group in Midvale, Utah. If a provider were wholly responsible for the data of hundreds or thousands of tenants, it simply wouldn’t be able to buy enough insurance to cover the liability. To protect themselves in this risky situation, cyber insurers generally cap their policies at $10 million or $15 million, forcing providers and large customers to keep shopping, experts said.

For more:  http://searchcio.techtarget.com/news/2240021040/Cyber-insurance-mitigates-the-risk-of-data-breaches-in-cloud-computing

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Cybercrime Risk Management: “Cloud Computing” Providers Will Carry “Cyber Insurance To Mitigate The Risk Of Data Breaches Or Unexpected Downtime”

Filed under Crime, Insurance, Liability, Theft, Training

Tagged as , ,

by | August 19, 2010 · 10:16 am

Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: Hospitality Management Must Have “Valid” Reasons To Fire Employees

  • Make sure that you have a valid reason for firing (or laying off) the employee. Some invalid reasons include: retaliation, complaining about OSHA violations, discrimination, alien status, and any violation of public policy.
  • Keep it confidential: a company-wide Eblast is probably not the best approach to alerting others in the company of the employees’ situation. Rather, only telling those individuals that need to know is the best approach to ensuring that the employee does not hear about his firing before it happens.
  • Plan ahead: sounds simple enough, but by considering all the legal requirements you need to comport with before firing the employee, you will also alleviate a lot of legal concerns that may occur post-firing. This may include: severance offers, monies due, terms in the employment contract, company policies, etc.
  • Keep a paper trail: keeping copies of performance reviews, relevant correspondence, and other personnel documents will help protect you should there be a lawsuit later on.
  • The employee should not be completely surprised by the firing or lay-off. Whether it is keeping employees abreast of the struggling finances of the company, or alerting the worker to poor job performance, there should be a dialogue before the employment termination.

Although a majority of the American workforce is based on “at will” employment, essentially meaning that the employer-employee relationship can be severed at any time, there are still some viable concerns over a wrongful termination suit in any situation. Making sure you have a valid reason for firing an employee, and planning the conversation ahead of time will help with the actual firing and protect your company from many of the legal issues that follow.

In the end, honesty is almost always the best policy, and usually appreciated as the employee can take your reasons with them as they job hunt.

For more:  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS348304971720100817

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: Hospitality Management Must Have “Valid” Reasons To Fire Employees

Filed under Insurance, Labor Issues, Liability, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

by | August 18, 2010 · 7:28 am

Hospitality Industry Health Care: Smaller Hotel Owners Will Struggle With “Medical Loss Ratio” And Must Find Hospitality Industry Health Care Insurance Specialist

The Affordable Care Act sets a minimum threshold for what’s known as the “medical loss ratio” — the percentage of premium dollars that go into medical care (a “loss” from Wall Street’s view) rather than into overhead or profits. For plans sold to small businesses or directly to individuals, that ratio must be at least 80 percent; for plans sold to large groups, it must be at least 85 percent.

For big insurance companies that sell predominantly to big employers, the medical loss ratio shouldn’t be hard to meet. With their economies of scale, these insurers and employers together provide coverage at relatively low administrative cost (although, it should be noted, Medicare’s overhead is even lower). But smaller insurers that deal primarily with individuals or small businesses will have a tougher time. Among other things, they typically lose 8 percent of premiums on commissions to agents and brokers who sell policies on their behalf. (Once the insurance exchanges exist, much of that cost will disappear.) These are also the insurers most likely to bilk consumers, since individuals buying coverage on their own typically lack the knowledge — or ability — to bargain as shrewdly as corporate benefits managers do. (The exchanges should also help with improved information and bargaining leverage.)

There’s leeway in the rule in two key places. The law doesn’t dictate a precise formula for calculating the medical-loss ratio. It’s up to the administration which “care management” activities count as medical care, whether taxes should be part of the calculation, and the extent to which carriers can average out the ratio among different plans. And while the law calls for the requirement to take effect starting in January 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services has the authority to phase it in; Sebelius could, for instance, set the floor at 70 percent for 2011 and then gradually ratchet it up until 2014. Some insurance and employer lobbyists have urged the administration to move slowly, lest insurers unable to meet those requirements go out of business. Then again, insurers that can’t meet those requirements are, by definition, less efficient.

For more:   http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/77080/get-ready-sebelilus-v-insurers

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Health Care: Smaller Hotel Owners Will Struggle With “Medical Loss Ratio” And Must Find Hospitality Industry Health Care Insurance Specialist

Filed under Health, Insurance, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , ,

by | August 16, 2010 · 8:28 am

Hospitality Industry Insurance Risk Management: Las Vegas Hotel Has Insurance Policy That Fails To Name Hotel As “Additional Insured”, Complicating Payment Of A Submitted Claim For Structural Damage

The floor collapsed and dropped almost a foot, resulting in damage to the structures of both the lounge and the hotel.

The Luxor also sought compensation as an “additional insured.” The lease between the casino and developer required the latter to name Luxor as an additional insured on all policies. No doubt the Luxor assumed (that dangerous word!) that this language covered its exposure to loss.

However, the developer’s insurance policy restricted the coverage of an additional insured. Luxor’s entitlement was limited to indemnification for money it paid to people injured by the developer’s acts or omissions. The casino was not entitled to compensation for its own losses…

The casino invoked the Unfair Insurance Claims Practices Statute, a law adopted by numerous state legislatures.

The Luxor Hotel & Casino Hotel contracted with a developer to construct and operate a restaurant called the Cathouse Lounge (nothing is subtle in Vegas) on the mezzanine level. The developer gutted the space, made structural modifications and installed new fixtures and equipment.

One night during Cathouse’s third month in operation, while a large crowd was enjoying good food and fun ambiance, a portion of the structure began to buckle. The floor collapsed and dropped almost a foot, resulting in damage to the structures of both the lounge and the hotel. The lounge was evacuated immediately. Thereafter the county Department of Building Services ordered Luxor to close both the Cathouse and damaged portions of the hotel pending repairs. Luxor hired an expert to determine the cause of the floor’s failure. Turns out the renovations were insufficient to support the sizeable number of people the lounge attracted.

Both Luxor and the developer paid to repair the structural deficiencies and for damage to their respective property. The Cathouse reopened in three weeks and submitted a claim to its insurance company. The Luxor also sought compensation as an “additional insured.” The lease between the casino and developer required the latter to name Luxor as an additional insured on all policies. No doubt the Luxor assumed (that dangerous word!) that this language covered its exposure to loss.

However, the developer’s insurance policy restricted the coverage of an additional insured. Luxor’s entitlement was limited to indemnification for money it paid to people injured by the developer’s acts or omissions. The casino was not entitled to compensation for its own losses. Yikes!

This is a very significant limitation. Luxor was seeking compensation for costs of repairing structural damage to its own facility, replacing its own destroyed property and interruption of its business. The insurance company denied the claim based on the indemnification-only coverage, and the court upheld the denial. This was not the plan Luxor had in mind when it included the requirement that the casino be listed as an additional insured in the developer’s lease.

But lawyers are clever folks and Luxor was well-represented. The casino invoked the Unfair Insurance Claims Practices Statute, a law adopted by numerous state legislatures. This act requires, among other consumer protection provisions, that insurance companies respond to claim letters within 30 days of receipt. The insurance company in the Luxor case waited months before acknowledging the hotel’s claim. The penalty for violation is mandatory payment of the claim. This is true even though the policy does not otherwise cover the claim. So the court awarded Luxor the money it sought. Sometimes the back door can be a great alternative.

For more:   http://www.hotelworldnetwork.com/legal/read-your-insurance-contract-closely-then-read-it-again

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Insurance Risk Management: Las Vegas Hotel Has Insurance Policy That Fails To Name Hotel As “Additional Insured”, Complicating Payment Of A Submitted Claim For Structural Damage

Filed under Claims, Insurance, Liability, Risk Management, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

by | August 13, 2010 · 10:07 am

Hotel Industry Health Risks: Hotel In Minnesota Has Laundry Chemical Sicken 6 Employees

A mix of laundry chemicals at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Eagan sent six employees the hospital…

Paramedics were called to the hotel at 2700 Pilot Knob Road around 10:30 a.m. after a hotel worker collapsed near the pool. Two laundry chemicals were found nearby – Destainer (Sodium Hypochlorite solution) and Sour 21 (Hydrofluorosilicic acid), which when combined form a corrosive chemical that can be fatal if ingested.

The six employees were taken to Regions Hospital in St. Paul. Five were treated and released, with one staying overnight for observation.

The hotel was evacuated. 59 guests were registered for a stay at the hotel at the time of the incident, but not all were there at the time.

For more:  http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/minnesota/laundry-chemicals-eagan-crowne-plaza-collapse-aug-6-2010

Comments Off on Hotel Industry Health Risks: Hotel In Minnesota Has Laundry Chemical Sicken 6 Employees

Filed under Health, Injuries, Liability, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , ,

by | August 12, 2010 · 6:41 pm

Hospitality Industry Foodborne Illnesses: Poultry (17%), Beef (16%) And Leafy Vegetables Cause Most Illnesses Reported That Included 18 Deaths In 2007 In U.S.

Among the 497 foodborne outbreaks with a laboratory-confirmed single etiologic agent reported, norovirus was the most common cause, followed by Salmonella. Among the 18 reported deaths, 11 were attributed to bacterial etiologies (five Salmonella, three Listeria monocytogenes, two Escherichia coli O157:H7, and one Clostridium botulinum), two to viral etiologies (norovirus), and one to a chemical (mushroom toxin).

Foodborne agents cause an estimated 76 million illnesses annually in the United States (1). Outbreak surveillance provides insights into the causes of foodborne illness, types of implicated foods, and settings of foodborne infections that can be used in food safety strategies to prevent and control foodborne disease. CDC collects data on foodborne disease outbreaks submitted from all states and territories. This report summarizes epidemiologic data for the 1,097 reported outbreaks occurring during 2007 (the most recent finalized data), which resulted in 21,244 cases of foodborne illness and 18 deaths. Among the 497 foodborne outbreaks with a laboratory-confirmed single etiologic agent reported, norovirus was the most common cause, followed by Salmonella. Among the 18 reported deaths, 11 were attributed to bacterial etiologies (five Salmonella, three Listeria monocytogenes, two Escherichia coli O157:H7, and one Clostridium botulinum), two to viral etiologies (norovirus), and one to a chemical (mushroom toxin). Four deaths occurred in outbreaks with unknown etiologies. Among the 235 outbreaks attributed to a single food commodity, poultry (17%), beef (16%), and leafy vegetables (14%) were most often the cause of illness.

For more:   http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Disease/foodborne_illness_1208100621.html

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Foodborne Illnesses: Poultry (17%), Beef (16%) And Leafy Vegetables Cause Most Illnesses Reported That Included 18 Deaths In 2007 In U.S.

Filed under Food Illnesses, Health, Insurance, Liability, Risk Management

Tagged as , , ,

by | August 11, 2010 · 7:24 pm

Hospitality Industry Safety Risks: OSHA Inspectors Can Cite “Willful Violations” If Management Ignores Employee Complaints

A “willful” violation can occur if the employer knew that he was violating a standard or if he was reckless. A good way to convince an OSHA inspector of recklessness (and thus willfulness) is to ignore employee complaints of danger, or worse, accident reports.

A lawyer knowledgeable on OSHA issues will serve as a buffer between the agency and the company’s management. He can make sure that responses to document requests are neither too broad nor too narrow.

A careful employer will review employee complaints, accident reports and minutes of safety meetings, and make sure that every item properly is evaluated and if found to be a problem, either fixed or scheduled for fixing with alternative protective measures implemented in the interim. Employers should not allow unaddressed items in such documents to smolder in their files, ready to be fanned into willfulness by an OSHA inspector.

For more:   http://ehstoday.com/standards/target-new-osha-sheriff-1339/index1.html

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Safety Risks: OSHA Inspectors Can Cite “Willful Violations” If Management Ignores Employee Complaints

Filed under Health, Injuries, Insurance, Liability, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , ,

by | August 10, 2010 · 3:27 pm

Hotel Industry Employee Injury Risk Management: Hotel Management Must Increase Training To Reduce Repetitive-Stress Injuries To Housekeepers

“Anybody who runs a hotel has to be crazy,” Davis said, not to address any problems that can lead to injuries among employees because of the implication for worker’s compensation.

Hyatt housekeepers had the highest risk of injury, according to the study. The lowest risk were with the Hilton chain. The problem is housekeepers are prone to repetitive-stress injuries from continually doing such things as changing sheets, washing bathroom floors and vacuuming.

Service workers, especially hotel housekeepers, have higher rates of on-the-job injuries, according to a report in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine.

The 2009 study analyzed injury records from 2003-05 at 50 hotels operated by the top-five hotel companies. Jobs studied included housekeepers, dishwashers, kitchen workers and banquet servers, representing 46 percent of the study population.

Since the study came out, the hotel industry nationwide has been looking at new ways to reduce injuries. Some properties have added extra employees for housekeepers don’t have to do heavy lifting.

For more:  http://www.news-journalonline.com/business/local-business/2010/08/07/hotels-seek-methods-to-reduce-worker-injuries.html

Comments Off on Hotel Industry Employee Injury Risk Management: Hotel Management Must Increase Training To Reduce Repetitive-Stress Injuries To Housekeepers

Filed under Health, Injuries, Insurance, Liability, Training

Tagged as , , , ,

by | August 9, 2010 · 2:10 pm

Hospitality Industry Employee Safety Training: OSHA Training Provisions Require That Management “Ensure That Employees Are Comprehending Instruction”, Specifically Lockout, Respiratory Protection And Bloodborne Pathogens

“If a reasonable person would conclude that the employer had not conveyed the training to its employees in a manner they were capable of understanding, then the violation may be cited as serious.”

OSHA’s general policy is that if an employee receives job instructions in a language other than English, training and information must also be conveyed in that language. Similarly, if employees are not literate, telling them to read training materials will not satisfy the employer’s training obligation.

OSHA adds that its training provisions contain a variety of specific requirements to ensure that employees are comprehending instruction. For example, standards covering lockout/tagout, respiratory protection, and bloodborne pathogens each require that employers take measures to ascertain the level to which the employee has comprehended the safety provisions.

For more:   http://enviro.blr.com/environmental-news/EHS-management/industrial-facility-compliance-training/Workers-Must-Understand-Training-118317/

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Employee Safety Training: OSHA Training Provisions Require That Management “Ensure That Employees Are Comprehending Instruction”, Specifically Lockout, Respiratory Protection And Bloodborne Pathogens

Filed under Food Illnesses, Health, Injuries, Insurance, Liability, Training

Tagged as , , ,