Viewing entries in
Government

Understanding Liability Under the False Claims Act

Understanding Liability Under the False Claims Act

Over the years, government compliance requirements have grown and grown. They've become more intricate, too – as have the tools needed to enforce them. Using a wide array of enforcement methods, the federal agencies work to control and enforce compliance.

There is one tool the government uses that affect contractors more than others – the False Claims Act. While understanding the False Claims Act can be difficult, it's imperative for contractors and surety professionals. The risks associated with violating the Act are significant.


What is the False Claims Act?

Before we get too far in, let's break down the False Claims Act. While complicated, the Act boils down to this: the law imposes liability on companies and individuals who defraud any government program. The federal government uses the act as the primary litigation device in fighting fraud against the government.

Not Too Difficult?

Contractors are typically aware that defrauding a customer, company, or government is completely prohibited and illegal. The False Claims Act extends beyond full-on fraud. A doctrine known as the "false certification doctrine" states that a contractor who falsely states they have complied with a variety of compliance policies imposed by the government can be held liable under the False Claims Act.

Violating the False Claims Act is far easier than committing traditional fraud. The government doesn't have to prove any damages suffered. They simply have to find a contractor who has submitted a claim that was "known" to be false.

Due to how the Act is enforced and the "false certification doctrine" – it is incredibly simply to violate the False Claims Act. Once you do, the violations can add up. Most contractors find a violation can be exceptionally costly.


Volatile and Expensive

There are two different types of liabilities the government can dish out to violators of the False Claims Act. Both actual damages and statutory penalties can be lobbied against violators.

The penalties can be between $10,781 and $21,563 for each claim submitted by the government. As individual invoices are treated as separate claims, a large penalty can be enforced – even when the government hasn't suffered any actual harm.

Not only are the fines costly, but they can be unpredictable, too. Even subcontractors without a direct relationship to the government can be subjected to liability – just like federal prime contractors.

Due to the whistleblower provisions in the False Claims Act, individuals with knowledge of a company's operations can bring suit on the government's behalf. This clause often catches contractors flat-footed and unaware of the consequences that may be coming.


What Sureties & Their Contractors Should Know

Paying attention to the False Claims Act is mandatory these days. While it seems to be tougher and tougher to stay in compliance with the Act than ever before, the consequences for failing to do so continue to get higher and higher.

As a surety, it's imperative to educate contractors on the perils of the False Claims Act. Contractors can take a number of steps to ensure risks are minimized. For example, a contractor could:

  • Implement a mandatory independent review of every single invoice by a project manager before submitting and completing the project.
  • Continual communication with the federal government through counsel. Details of contractual difficulties that arise and compliance issue may be discussed.
  • Fully implementing a compliance, monitoring, and training program for all employees that covers a majority of significant contractual requirements.

On top of these ideas, a contractor may seek to consult with outside counsel regarding changes to federal regulations and implementation. By doing so, a contractor can limit exposure to liabilities under the Act. 

To learn more about liability under the False Claims Act and how this effects your business contact Skyline Risk Management, Inc. at (718) 267-6600.

It Finally Happened! 421-A Gets Extended

It Finally Happened! 421-A Gets Extended

It took months upon months. There was a lot of hand-wringing. Developers threatend to stop a number of multifamily developments if there was no tax abatement in place.

Luckily, that disaster was avoided. Finally, the Real Estate Board of New York and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York came to an agreement. The extension of the lapsed 421-A program that offers tax exemption has been extended.


What It Means?

So what was all the fuss about? The 421-A extension means that eligible buildings in Manhattan must pay an average hourly wage of at least $60 – including all wages and benefits. Other buildings in Queens and Brooklyn are required to pay at least $45 per hour when all wages and benefits are taken into account.

The 421-A extension obligations only apply to buildings in certain areas that meet specific criteria. Only buildings in Manhattan south of 96th street qualify. In Brooklyn and Queens, only buildings in Community Boards 1 and 2 around one mile from the closest waterfront bulkhead qualify.

As well, only buildings with over 300 rental units are obligated to the pay stipulations. Buildings that have 50% or more of affordable housing units are also excluded from the obligations in 421-A.

If a project began before the effective date of the new 421-A agreement, then the project can choose to opt-in to the program if they want to. Of course, these projects must meet eligibility criteria, too.


Understanding the Benefits of 421-A

While the details are important, the reasoning behind the agreement shouldn't be overlooked. Many important people are thrilled with the agreement, especially regarding benefits for low-income New Yorkers. Governor Andrew Cuomo is one of them:

"The deal reached today between these parties provides more affordability for tenants and fairer wages for workers than under the original proposal. While I would prefer even more affordability in the 421-a program, this agreement marks a major step forward for New Yorkers.

The agreement extends affordability for projects created with 421-a for an additional five years–bringing affordability for these units to 40 years. It also allows lower-income individuals to qualify as it lowers the percentage of area median income needed to apply.

Additionally, this agreement rightly delivers fair wages for working men and women – providing a rate of $60 per hour in Manhattan and $45 for certain projects in Brooklyn and Queens. Most importantly until this agreement is finalized, the State Legislature has refused to release $2 billion in state affordable housing funds. I urge the Legislature to come back to Albany to pass desperately needed affordable housing and to sign the MOU to release these funds. We simply cannot allow the lack of resolution to stall affordable housing production for years to come. There is no excuse not to act."


More Info on 421-A

Governor Andrew Cuomo is excited about 421-A for a number of reasons, including:

1. Traditional Worker Standards: Many applaud the amendment for continuing to give construction workers the rights they deserve in New York City. The standards and benefits provided in 421-A go a long way towards keeping workers taken care of.

2. Affordable Housing: The 421-A amendment allows for the development of affordable housing for low-income individuals. This is critical in a city like New York City, which features some of the most expensive housing costs in the world. The 421-A program allows buildings complying with the regulations to stay in the program for 35 years with a property tax exemption. This incentive should keep units with income limitations in the program.


Finally Done!

Overall, the passing of 421-A is set to benefit a number of New Yorkers. The amendment ensures quality wages and benefits for construction workers. It also ensures affordable housing units are created in some of New York's most popular neighborhoods and areas. 

For more information about NYC insurance laws contact Skyline Risk Management, Inc. at (718) 267-6600.

Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed Limited to Contractual Privity in New York

Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed Limited to Contractual Privity in New York

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department decided that additional insured endorsement only provided additional insured coverage to an entity in direct contractual privity with the named insured. The decision reinforces the New York law, which controls policy language entitlement to added insured coverage.


Why the Confirmation?

The New York Supreme Court was forced to confirm this law due to a recent case. Brought to heed on Sept. 15, 2016, the case involved the Dormitory Authority of New York (DASNY), Gilbane Building Co. /TDX Construction Corp (a joint venture, or JV)., and Sampson Construction Company.

The contract between DASNY and the JV stated that all prime contractors retained by DASNY were to name the construction manager as an additional insured under the liability policies. This was a requirement.

Next, DASNY contracted with Sampson to retain its services as a prime contractor in all foundation and excavation labor. In this contract, Sampson agreed to name the construction manager as an additional insured on its commercial general liability policy. The company then purchases a commercial general liability insurance plan from Liberty Insurance.

The policy Sampson procured from Liberty contained the following information about additional insured endorsements:

WHO IS AN INSURED: (Section II) is amended to include as an insured any person or organization with whom you have agreed to add as an additional insured by written contract, but only with respect to liability arising out of your operations or premises owned by or rented to you.

Moving forward – the work Sampson did on the job site allegedly created property damage to the building adjacent. Thus, DASNY filed suit against Sampson and the architect. Then the architect bought a suit against the JV, too. The JV then sought coverage under the Liberty policy that Sampson procured for the DASNY contract as additional insured.

Liberty denied coverage. So the defendants opened a declaratory judgment action against Liberty. Then Liberty made a play for a summary judgment, claiming that additional summary judgment would require some direct contractual privity with the named insured, Sampson.

The court then denied Liberty’s motion on the basis that the policy only required a written contract in which Sampson is a party. This requirement was satisfied when DASNY and Sampson entered a contract. However, this was overturned on appeal based on the additional insured endorsement.

While the Sampson and DASNY contract was evidence that Sampson agreed to provide coverage, the court ruled that this has no impact on the coverage Liberty agreed to provide them. This opened the door for the JV to pursue Sampson on a breach of contract clause, as a third-party beneficiary.


Nothing Has Changed

The concept that New York courts read closely regarding additional insured endorsements determined whether privity was required is nothing new. The Gilbane Court relied on numerous prior decisions with similar language, including:

AB Green Gansevoort, LLC v. Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., 102 A.D.3d 425, 961 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1st Dep’t 2013) (requiring contractual privity where additional insured endorsement stated that “an organization is added as an additional insured ‘when you and such organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such organization be added as an additional insured on your policy.’”); Linarello v. City Univ. of New York, 6 A.D.3d 192, 774 N.Y.S.2d 517 (1st Dep’t 2004) (same). See also Zoological Soc. of Buffalo, Inc. v. Carvedrock, LLC, No. 10-CV-35-A, 2014 WL 3748545 (W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2014) (requiring contractual privity where additional insured endorsement afforded coverage to “[a]ny person or organization with whom you have agreed, in a written contract, that such person or organization should be added as an insured on your policy, provided such written contract is fully executed prior to the ‘occurrence’ in which coverage is sought under this policy.”)

The JV and courts attempted to distinguish the language in each policy, but the Gilbane Court clearly stated that privity between named insured and additional insured is required. 

For more information about Additional Insured Coverage, contact Skyline Risk Management, Inc. at (718) 267-6600

Replacing Obamacare Will Be Harder Than Any Republicans Thought

Replacing Obamacare Will Be Harder Than Any Republicans Thought

President-elect Donald Trump has made many promises as he campaigned for the Presidential election. While no one knows which promises he'll keep and if he'll be able to accomplish many of them, repealing the Affordable Care Act will be difficult. Here's why:


The Repeal

It took President Obama several years to create and complete Obamacare. The system is vast and complex. Plus, it took years just to approve the legislation before any implementation could be completed. Repealing the system is not going to happen overnight.

Millions of people utilize Obamacare. And many Republicans agree that instantly repealing the system could cause a shock to the industry – and not in a good way. No matter what happens, most predict change is inevitable.

Trump could sign a repeal of Obamacare in his first days in office. Then ensure it doesn't go into effect for some time. This would allow Republicans to draft complex plans and policy for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act. Everyone in Congress is confident that repealing the act will be much easier than replacing it.

For example, certain provisions will be included in the new health care laws and mandates. Many Republicans, including Trump, like the age provisions that allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan. Other Republicans are found of provisions that offer guaranteed coverage to all.


Health Insurers & ACA

Health insurance companies are essentially playing a waiting game at this point. The Affordable Care Act was a complete and utter shock to the industry. Many insurers struggled to cope with the various regulations and costs. However, now that the act is in place, things seem to be running smoothly.

Repealing and replacing Obamacare will be anything but smooth. Many health insurance companies are crossing their fingers in hopes of a minor disruption. Most people in the industry don't want to see the shock and chaos that implementing Obamacare brought just a few years back – again!


Getting Into the Details

Obamacare, repealing, and new replacement legislation is going to get tricky. For instance, most believe that guaranteeing coverage for pre-existing conditions is an important piece of legislation. However, many argue that the mandate requiring all Americans to have health coverage is unjust.

Alternatives to the mandate have been discussed. However, most agree that the financial penalties found in the mandate ensure more Americans get coverage. Without the financial penalties, there would be many people who wouldn't buy coverage

Many Republicans, like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, have proposed similar legislation to Obamacare. He'd like certain people to receive tax incentives to help people afford the type of coverage they need. He's also interested in protecting people from rising rates for illness – when they maintain continuous health insurance coverage.


Breaking Records

While Obamacare has taken certain hits here and there, the people of the United States have hit a record low of uninsured. More people have coverage in the United States than nearly ever before. In this way, the Affordable Care Act was a success.

Not every aspect of Obamacare has been successful, though. Major insurance companies like Aetna and UnitedHealth Group both withdrew from the program. Premiums have skyrocketed, too. Plus, many Obamacare plans feature high deductible – ensuring many couldn't afford care if they got ill.  


The Reality of Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act will be repealed. With Trump as the President and a Republican House and Senate, the legislation doesn't stand a chance. The reality of the situation is this:

Once the bill is repealed, Republicans and Democrats will have to work together to replace the parts of Obamacare that everyone agrees on. It will take time, a lot of time – as that's just how things work in Washington. Hopefully, the time and change won't have too negative of an effect on the health insurance industry and the American public. 

For more information about health insurance contact Skyline Risk Management, Inc. - (718) 267-600.

2017 ACA Health Insurance Plan Increases

2017 ACA Health Insurance Plan Increases

2017: ACA Average Plan Increase by State

Alabama - 71%

Alaska - 26%

Arizona - 145%

Arkansas - 1%

California - 5%

Colorado - 12%

Connecticut - 27%

Delaware - 19%

D.C Washington - 22%

Florida - 17%

Georgia - 13%

Hawaii - 32%

Idaho - 27%

Illinois - 48%

Indiana - (-4%)

Iowa - 6%

Kansas - 46%

Kentucky - 3%

Louisiana - 13%

Maine - 19%

Maryland - 24%

Massachusetts - N/A

Michigan - 5%

Minnesota - 55%

Mississippi - 25%

Missouri - 8%

Montana - 32%

Nebraska - 18%

Nevada - 8%

New Hampshire  - 2%

New Jersey - 7%

New Mexico - 39%

New York - 24%

North Carolina - 40%

North Dakota - 9%

Ohio - (-2%)

Oklahoma - 67%

Oregon - 20%

Pennsylvania - 51%

Rhode Island - (-1%)

South Carolina - 29%

South Dakota - 45%

Tennessee - 49%

Texas - 13%

Utah - 20%

Vermont - 5%

Virginia - 7%

Washington - NA

West Virginia - 23%

Wisconsin - 16%

Wyoming - 9%

 

2017 is certainly going to be a year of decisions. If you are concerned about your health insurance rates for 2017 contact Skyline Risk Management, Inc at (718) 267-6600 to discuss the best health insurance options for you. 

Cuomo Works to Revive 421-A Tax Abatement Program

Cuomo Works to Revive 421-A Tax Abatement Program

New York City building projects need to continue to keep the economy moving in the right direction; however, the 421-a tax abatement program that was encouraging building in New York City has expired. Governor Cuomo is offering union officials and developers a wage subsidy program to help revive the program. This plan is somewhat similar to the bill that was submitted to the Senate at the end of the legislative session, but that bill did not include a wage subsidy.

Trying to Keep Construction and the Economy Healthy

A bill, called 421-A, was submitted right before the end of the legislative session in June, but it failed to pass. In the bill, it detailed a $55 per hour average minimum wage for construction workers who were working on projects located south of 96th Street, which included more than 300 apartment units.

The wage subsidy program has a two-tiered wage for government-assisted projects of over 300 apartments on the waterfront: one tier for Queens and Brooklyn and another for Manhattan. For example, in Manhattan, a project south of 96th Street asks for a 421-a tax abatement would be required to pay at least $65/hour minimum wage, including benefits. Meanwhile, in Queens and Brooklyn, the wages would be at least $50/hour, in both wages and benefits. New York State would reimburse or subsidize 30% of the wages. Additionally, a developer would need to allot a percentage of the units for below-market rents.

The issue that many people are worried about is where the money is going to come from. After all, this subsidy could run into the tens of millions of dollars. Also, how will the funds be managed?

Thoughts from Governor Cuomo

During a speech at the New York State AFL-CIO 33rd Constitutional Convention, Governor Cuomo discussed the much-needed infrastructure repairs the state needs, including upgrades to the Long Island Railroad and JFK and LaGuardia airports. He then mentioned the 421-a program, admitting that this plan was largely about union wages. “That’s what this fight on 421-a is all about, and they try to make it complicated, but it’s very, very simple. I have two problems with the program; first, it’s an affordable housing program, but it doesn’t provide the affordability for long enough.” His second issue was with the city not paying the union wages. “Developers don’t want to be forced to use union labor, because if they are left on their own they want to use non-union labor, and at one time, in this city, you would never dream of building non-union construction. I want to pay more so we have union jobs because the government shouldn’t pay a poverty wage, that’s why I want to pay more.”

Keeping the economy moving in the right direction means keeping everyone working, and for construction workers, this means that they need projects to work on. This wage subsidy program is meant to keep them working at a wage that will allow them to take care of their family and their financial commitments. In addition, it offers more affordable housing for others, so they can move into the state, get jobs, and contribute to the economy. All in all, it works to help everyone. 

Worried about how the 421-A bill could effect your business? You can protect yourself with sufficient insurance protection. Contact Skyline Risk Management, Inc. (718) 267-6600 to voice your concerns. 

Affordable Care Act: A Year-By-Year Overview

Affordable Care Act: A Year-By-Year Overview

The Affordable Care Act, often referred to as Obamacare, although passed by the Congress in 2010, was designed to be phased in each year with 2016 marked as full implementation. Along the way there have been challenges by some of the states and challenges by Congress; but, alas, the full-blown Affordable Care Act (ACA) has arrived. Each year, portions of this massive healthcare reform act were implemented, and the most significant are as follows:

2010

Patient's Bill of Rights - This provision was designed to protect U.S. consumers from alleged abuses of the insurance industry. It also called for free preventative services to begin for U.S. consumers who become insure. There was also an additional twenty changes included with the 2010 implementations.

2011

Medicare members are offered key preventive services at no cost and receive a 50% savings on brand-name drugs while in the "donut hole." There are an additional eight components that were also implemented in 2011.

2012

This year was all about improving healthcare quality and reducing paperwork and administrative costs in the healthcare industry. 2012 was also the year for the implementation of CLASS, a voluntary long-term care insurance solution. There were also four other major implementations in 2012.

2013

This was the year when open enrollment began for the Health Insurance Marketplace and will be remembered for the many failures of the HealthCare.Gov online portal. There were also four other major implementations that went into effect.

2014

2014 is considered by many to be the year of the consumer. Pre-existing conditions, annual limits of coverage, and clinical trial coverage were the highlights for 2014.

2015

Physicians who provide a higher quality of care rather than volume of care will receive higher payments than physicians who provide a lower quality of care.

2016

2016 is scheduled as the year for complete implementation of the employer mandate:

  • Any business that employs at least 50 full-time employees will be required to offer at least 95% of the full-time employees health insurance to avoid penalties.
  • The definition of "affordability" is changed to 9.66% of an employee's total household income.
  • Employers will be penalized for failure to provide minimum essential coverage to employees or offering an inadequate health plan. The new penalty under section 4980H(a) is increased to $2,160per full-time employee in excess of 30 employees.
  • If an employer offers minimum essential coverage the doesn't satisfy the requirements of "Minimum Value and Affordability," a penalty will be levied if a full-time employee receives a premium tax credit to buy insurance on an exchange as a result of the following:

1.      The employer health coverage did not offer "minimum value".

2.      The employer health coverage was considered "unaffordable."


Challenges Over the Years

Although the ACA was passed by the Congress, it was done so on a razor thin margin and therefore there were many who felt that the massive health care overhaul might not pass constitutional muster, and so challenges were certainly to follow:

  • Early on Republicans in 26 states challenged the mandate in the act, saying it was an unconstitutional expansion of federal power. The Supreme Court heard the case and in June of 2012 ruled that it was constitutional.
  • In June of 2014 after a case was filed by Hobby Lobby that complained that the ACA forced closely held businesses to violate religious convictions while being required to pay for contraception, the Supreme Court ruled against the ACA.
  • In another case in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that health insurance subsidies could be awarded in states that set up their own and exchanges and in states that did not.

Whatever your feelings are regarding the Affordable Care Act, most can agree that it is a massive piece of legislation that is complex and confusing. To make certain that your business is adhering to the rules and regulations, contact an insurance professional at Skyline Risk Management  (718) 267-6600 to learn more about managing your employee benefits.


Kammas of Skyline Risk Management lobbies U.S. lawmakers on flood insurance protection

Kammas of Skyline Risk Management lobbies U.S. lawmakers on flood insurance protection

May 17, 2016

May 17, 2016

New York, NY Real estate owners in New York and around the country may be in line for much needed relief in obtaining lender required flood insurance, according to Anthony Kammas, partner at New York-based Skyline Risk Management, a major construction insurance agency.

 Kammas, secretary-elect of the Professional Insurance Association (PIA) New York Chapter, recently spent two days on Capitol Hill meeting with U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and other key legislators to urge elected officials to support the House of Representative Bill (HR2901) and Senate Bill (#1679) which would open the flood market to private carriers.

“The federal government currently provides flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and private carriers now want to enter this market,” said Kammas, who is currently a board member of the PIA of New York and chair of the PIA’s governmental affairs committee. “The goal is to provide private flood market insurance and competition so the government is the carrier of last resort. That will help with the pricing of such coverage.”

 According to Kammas, the government flood program is reauthorized annually, but the PIA wants to get it authorized for 10 years so that there is a sense of stability within the marketplace. The House vote is set for this week and the U.S. Senate Banking Committee is set to debate the bill for consideration this summer.

 “Senator Schumer is very supportive of flood insurance and we are waiting to see what he and U.S. senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey are going to do,” said Kammas, who said the U.S. government lost nearly $24 billion because it set flood insurance premiums too low and did not collect enough premium to cover claims.

“Now with new actuarial rates, private carriers see some money can be made,” said Kammas, who explained that even if the bill passes, the NFIP will still be able to offer flood insurance, but they will no longer be the primary provider of flood insurance.

 Kammas is a partner at Skyline Risk Management, a New York-based insurance company that specializes in construction and real estate insurance. During 2015, new construction costs for residential projects grew to an all time high of $18-billion, almost double from the $10-billion in 2014 of which Skyline procured insurance for almost $1-billion of that total cost in 2015.

The company is licensed in nine states and territories including New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Virginia and Florida.

 On his recent trip to D.C., Kammas joined with hundreds of his fellow agents from across the country as part of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents’ 2016 Federal Legislative Summit. “PIA is an aggressive, activist organization that is never afraid to speak up and speak out on behalf of our members and clients,” said Kammas.

Source: New York Real Estate Journal (NYREJ)

A Step Toward Disaster-Recovery Sanity

A Step Toward Disaster-Recovery Sanity

Congress can open the door to private flood insurance

The U.S. House of Representatives edged U.S. flood insurance policy—and with it, risk financing needed to rebuild after losses from flooding—closer to rationality with a unanimous vote April 28. It approved H.R. 2901, which opened the path to more participation of private insurers. Right now, flood insurance is available primarily via a subsidized federal flood insurance program and is generally excluded as a risk in privately purchased property coverage.

The federal National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has accumulated a roughly $24-billion debt, says Anthony Kammas, a partner in insurance broker Skyline Risk Management in New York City, because the U.S. government set premiums below actual risks and failed to collect enough to cover claims.

The NFIP legislation in 1968 allowed policies to be written prior to flood insurance rate maps, primarily for property owners in high-risk areas, says Insurance Journal, and now about one out of five NFIP policies has subsidized rates. In essence, U.S. taxpayers finance the risk of property owners in flood-prone areas.

Private insurers aren’t asking to take over yet. The National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, for example, doesn’t support immediate shifting all flood insurance to the private sector. Kammas, who is active in the association’s New York chapter, says that with real underwriting of flood insurance rates and the continuation of federally subsidized rates, the federal government should gradually become the flood insurer of last resort rather than the only choice.

Meanwhile, the private flood insurance industry is awaiting new, more realistic flood maps to be completed—as well as a multiyear reauthorization of NFIP.

Although private-sector insurers aren’t always regarded with the same warm respect that is enjoyed by other sectors of the business world, they inject a necessary discipline. That discipline will be needed in an age of violent, unpredictable weather. Significantly, disaster insurance reform has united a coalition of anti-tax advocates, insurers and environmentalists.

Some collaboration is already taking place. Policy website SmarterSafer.org (formerly Americans for a Smart Natural Catastrophe Policy), for example, counts among its members the Natural Resources Defense Council, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and insurers Chubb Corp. and Allianz. Its encouragement of policies that don’t incentivize living in hurricane- and flood-prone areas and of NFIP reform that includes accurate maps, risk-based rates and a focus on mitigation seems to represent one sensible approach.

Meanwhile, the broad coalition of industries and associations that supported the bill passed by the House will be needed to push the Senate to adopt its version. There are good reasons for supporting it.

Source: Engineering News-Record