Understanding Safety Groups and Self-Insured Trusts
Over the years, Adam Friedlander has written extensively and been quoted on the key differences between safety groups and self-insured trusts. Self-insured trusts were once a popular option for managing Workers' Compensation risk, where groups of employers pooled their resources to self-insure their obligations. However, many of these trusts ultimately failed due to underfunding and mismanagement, leading to unexpected costs and liabilities for their members. Today, self-insured trusts are largely non-existent.
In contrast, safety groups, such as those managed by Friedlander Group, offer a structured, secure approach to Workers' Compensation coverage. Members of safety groups benefit from collective buying power, leading to significant savings, but without the unpredictable liabilities associated with self-insured trusts. Safety groups provide stable and transparent coverage, with clearly defined costs and limited liability—attributes that have made them a preferable alternative since the decline of self-insured trusts.
For more insights into the evolution of these options and industry analysis by Adam Friedlander, you can explore his past articles that detail the rise and fall of self-insured trusts and the continuing benefits of safety groups.
****
"Self-Insured Trusts: Paying Your Competitors' Costs" - Insurance Advocate, May 5, 2008
"Trusts vs Safety Groups" - Insurance Advocate, January 30, 2006
"N.Y. workers' comp trusts: rising prices and broker concerns" - Insurance Journal-East Region, November 20, 2006
"Business Owners Should Match Promised Costs Savings Against Unanticipated Risk" - Insurance Advocate, Nov. 4, 2000