Embedded Files
Post date: May 25, 2016 12:42:24 PM
NOTE: This email string has been edited for clarity and to eliminate a certain amount of cross-talk. It presents the gist of this conversation but is not a word-for-word representation of the actual emails.
From: Barrett Wilson [mailto:bgwilson53@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 5:03 PM
To: Chris Riemer; Lori Falco; Elizabeth Lachowicz; Barrett Wilson; George Otto
Subject: WCC
Greetings Fellow WCC'ers,
I've just gotten off the phone with a WC lawyer. A very nice man. His usual format for an opinion letter is to submit to him via email the basic facts of our situation (not hard to do), but I'm more concerned with his price - $500.00 up front, and then more or less depending on the amount of time involved.I'm not sure I want to spend this amount for a legal opinion on our WCC issue.
I am still winding my way thru the Pro Bono lawyers approach, and that should produce for us a legal opinion to guide us, at no cost. They have assigned us a lawyer, I've just had trouble getting thru to her on the phone....I should have better results soon.
More to follow...
Stay Tuned / Play Nice...
Barrett Wilson
President - The Folk Project
president@folkproject.org
From: Minstrel@FolkProject.org [mailto:Minstrel@FolkProject.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 7:23 PM
To: 'Lori Falco'; 'Barrett Wilson'; 'Riemer, Chris'; 'Elizabeth Lachowicz'; 'George Otto'
Cc: 'MDelvec952'
Subject: RE: Work Comp 2009 Pro Bono Attorney Opinion - PS:
And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Here's what I'll do. If this lawyer's opinion is that we do not require Workers' Comp, then our $500 is well spent. If his opinion is that we do require Workers' Comp, then I will make a $500 donation to the Folk Project.
Mike Agranoff
Program Chair
The Minstrel Acoustic Concert Series
Morristown, NJ. USA
www.Minstrel.FolkProject.org
From: Lori Falco [mailto:lwfalco@optonline.net]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 12:15 AM
To: Minstrel@FolkProject.org; 'Barrett Wilson'; 'Riemer, Chris'; 'Elizabeth Lachowicz'; 'George Otto'
Cc: 'MDelvec952'
Subject: Re: Work Comp 2009 Pro Bono Attorney Opinion - PS:
Mike,
It certainly couldn't hurt to get another opinion. But please note that in 2009 the Pro Bono attorney contacted three NJ lawyers who had spent decades specializing in Work Comp insurance and were willing to give their names, which are listed in the report I sent earlier.
Lori
From: Mark Schaffer [mailto:markschaffer100@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 5:50 PM
To: Minstrel@FolkProject.org FolkProject
Cc: Barbara E. Moo; Barrett Wilson
Subject: Re: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
Mike,
The strategy you outline falls short. The Workers Comp issue can be cleaned up quickly thanks to my legal contacts' pro bono efforts, and cleaned up for free.
I submitted a legal brief to the WC committee. Call our insurance person and say, “We have a legal brief saying we don’t need Worker’s Comp. Please forward it to your legal department for an opinion." Then forward the brief in an email to the sales person.
My legal contacts believe that faced with the cases cited, the company’s lawyers will agree with this brief. That agreement is an admission that gives us solid protection in any litigation going forward. If we stop payment based on our own lawyer’s opinion, the matter is left open. These are top experts in insurance and workers comp. I doubt you could afford better.
This can still be wrapped up very quickly, cheaply and properly.
Mark
From: Minstrel@FolkProject.org [mailto:Minstrel@FolkProject.org]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 7:09 PM
To: 'Mark Schaffer'
Cc: e.lachowicz@verizon.net; 'George Otto'; 'Chris Riemer'; bmoo@att.net
Subject: RE: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
Mark,
I am forwarding your email to the other members of the Workers Comp Insurance Committee.
Thanks for your input. This is good strategy. The problem, however, is that the opinion you cite shows that our performers are contractors, not employees. That is not the point of contention here. Everybody agrees that they are contractors. The issue is, that under certain interpretations of New Jersey law, it is required that some contractors must be covered for Workers' Comp by those that hire them. That's the sticking point, not the fact that they're contractors.
However, I do recommend that we employ your strategy of approaching our insurance company with a legal opinion that in our specific case our performers do not fall under that interpretation of the law. We plan on retaining an attourney to render us an expert opinion on our case. If that opinion is in our favor, as I am betting it will be, we should submit THAT written document to our insurance company, and ask them to consult their legal department. If they react as you predict, then we are free and in the clear to drop W.C, since we will have concurring opinions from both our attorney and our insurance company.
Mike Agranoff
Program Chair
The Minstrel Acoustic Concert Series
Morristown, NJ. USA
From: Mark Schaffer [mailto:markschaffer100@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 7:12 PM
To: Minstrel@FolkProject.org FolkProject
Cc: Elizabeth Lachowicz; g_otto@comcast.net; Chris Riemer; Barbara Moo
Subject: Re: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
Please introduce your attorney to the written opinion at the outset. If he approves the written opinion you already have it should save you most of the $700.
M
From: Mike Agranoff [mailto:Mike@MikeAgranoff.com]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 9:44 PM
To: 'Mark Schaffer'; Minstrel@FolkProject.org
Cc: 'Elizabeth Lachowicz'; g_otto@comcast.net; 'Chris Riemer'; 'Barbara Moo'
Subject: RE: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
No, the written opinion only states that our performers are contractors. It does not state that they are contractors who are not required to be covered under W.C. It's that' second part of the equation for which we're paying $500 (not $700).
Mike Agranoff
www.MikeAgranoff.com
From: Mark Schaffer [mailto:markschaffer100@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 11:23 PM
To: Mike Agranoff
Cc: Minstrel@FolkProject.org FolkProject; Elizabeth Lachowicz; g_otto@comcast.net; Chris Riemer; Barbara Moo
Subject: Re: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
Mike,
Interesting, but not relevant. The brief will get the response from the insurance company that will ensure our coverage. As long as you are paying the legal fees, there’s no downside to the Project and it’s a good plan.
Thanks a bunch.
Mark
From: George [mailto:g_otto@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 11:44 PM
To: Schaffer, Mark
Cc: Agranoff, Mike; Coffeehouse, Minstrel; Lachowicz, Elizabeth; Riemer, Chris; Moo, Barb; Otto, George
Subject: Re: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
Hi Mark,
I don't quite understand your comment.
It appears that we are looking for a professional opinion from a lawyer that says the following:
"You, the Folk Project, do not need to pay Workmen's Compensation for your performers, and I will defend you in court against anyone who says different."
Does the opinion you mention in your email make this statement? If so, we are done and don't need to spend any money asking for a second opinion. If the opinion you refer to does not make this statement, then we need to spend the money to see if an expert attorney will, in fact, commit to the above opinion.
George Otto
(908) 604-4623
GeorgeOtto@mac.com
From: Mike Agranoff [mailto:Mike@MikeAgranoff.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 6:37 AM
To: 'George'; 'Schaffer, Mark'
Cc: 'Coffeehouse, Minstrel'; 'Lachowicz, Elizabeth'; 'Riemer, Chris'; 'Moo, Barb'; 'Otto, George'
Subject: RE: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
No. The legal statement from Mark only asserts that our performers are contractors, not employees. It does not say that we are absolved from providing WC insurance for them. Remember that the whole sticking point was Andy's contention that under some interpretation of NJ law, some contractors must be provided with WC insurance. And it is that interpretation of law for which we are seeking a legal opinion that it does not apply to us.
Mike Agranoff
www.MikeAgranoff.com
From: Mark Schaffer [mailto:markschaffer100@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 9:48 AM
To: Mike Agranoff
Cc: g_otto@comcast.net; Minstrel@FolkProject.org FolkProject; Elizabeth Lachowicz; Chris Riemer; Barbara Moo; George Otto
Subject: Re: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
Mike,
I will send this to the experts for a response.
Thanks,
Mark
From: Mike Agranoff [mailto:Mike@MikeAgranoff.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 10:30 AM
To: 'Mark Schaffer'
Cc: g_otto@comcast.net; Minstrel@FolkProject.org; 'Elizabeth Lachowicz'; 'Chris Riemer'; 'Barbara Moo'; 'George Otto'
Subject: RE: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
Good. If your contact can include in his statement that we are not legally required to provide WC coverage for our performers, maybe that opinion, without attribution or signature might be enough to present to the Insurance company. Certainly would be worth a try before we pay for a signed opinion.
Mike Agranoff
www.MikeAgranoff.com
From: Mark Schaffer [mailto:markschaffer100@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 12:16 PM
To: Mike Agranoff
Cc: g_otto@comcast.net; Minstrel@FolkProject.org FolkProject; Elizabeth Lachowicz; Chris Riemer; Barbara Moo; George Otto
Subject: Re: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
Mike,
I forwarded this email directly to the “insurance expert” who wrote the opinion along with his “WC expert.”
He emailed back that the opinion was fine as-is, it should be submitted to the agent, and that the agent would respond professionally and submit it to his lawyers.
He suspects that the problem is that his advice was free, and that the committee will feel better if they go forward and pay money for advice that is actually not necessary.
Call if you want to discuss further.
Mark
From: Mike Agranoff [mailto:Mike@MikeAgranoff.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 1:56 PM
To: 'Mark Schaffer'
Cc: g_otto@comcast.net; Minstrel@FolkProject.org; 'Elizabeth Lachowicz'; 'Chris Riemer'; 'Barbara Moo'; 'George Otto'
Subject: RE: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
Well, I still have concerns that the opinion only assures that the performers are contractors, rather than employees, but does not speak to whether or not those contractors are required to be covered by Workers' Comp under NJ law. But Mark says that his expert feels that the written opinion is sufficient to prove our point if submitted to our insurance agent.
One possible plan would be to submit Mark's expert opinion to our insurance agent, and see what happens. If they come back to us that we still need WC, we can follow up by submitting a paid opinion which will (hopefully) include the specifics that these contractors are not required to be covered by W.C. insurance. I'm still willing to cover the cost of retaining an attourney if his opinion does not include that specification.
Mike Agranoff
www.MikeAgranoff.com
From: Mark Schaffer [mailto:markschaffer100@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 2:06 PM
To: Mike Agranoff
Cc: g_otto@comcast.net; Minstrel@FolkProject.org FolkProject; Elizabeth Lachowicz; Chris Riemer; Barbara Moo; George Otto
Subject: Re: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
Michael,
The entire purpose of the effort - as expressed in the initial phone call and follow up email - is “We don’t have to pay, here is our legal basis.” It’s not like this legal opinion is sent in a vacuum.
Mark
From: Mike Agranoff [mailto:Mike@MikeAgranoff.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 2:56 PM
To: 'Mark Schaffer'
Cc: g_otto@comcast.net; Minstrel@FolkProject.org; 'Elizabeth Lachowicz'; 'Chris Riemer'; 'Barbara Moo'; 'George Otto'
Subject: RE: Workman's Comp. Insurance (WCI) Prof. Opinion--Further information
You're absolutely right. And if Liberty Mutual caves and says "You're correct. We'll cancel your policy and have a nice day.", then everything is hunky-dory.
But I'm considering the contingency that Liberty Mutual might say, "We do not agree with your legal basis, because your performers are contractors who require W.C. coverage under NJ law.", and what to do if that happens.
Mike Agranoff
www.MikeAgranoff.com
Page updated
Report abuse