Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 18:02     Subject: Re:Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
Anonymous



Anonymous wrote:
Another reason allowing a nanny to bring their own child to work is a BAD idea.

No one's paying for that, silly.


You must be new here.

Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 17:52     Subject: Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
Anonymous wrote:Oh, good grief. Check with your insurer. This was not the case with ours, and I'm sure they aren't the only ones in town who have a rational policy on this. The only person who was not covered by our base policy was our nanny, and that was because she works more than 20 hours a week--had she worked under 20, she would have been covered automatically. We aded a rider to cover the extra hours--easy (and inexpensive).

Worker's comp is also required in MD and DC, but not in VA (though personally I would get it regardless). So whether you are breaking the law by not having it depends on where you live.

Your problem is the noncovered other child, not your employee nanny.
Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 16:50     Subject: Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
Oh, good grief. Check with your insurer. This was not the case with ours, and I'm sure they aren't the only ones in town who have a rational policy on this. The only person who was not covered by our base policy was our nanny, and that was because she works more than 20 hours a week--had she worked under 20, she would have been covered automatically. We aded a rider to cover the extra hours--easy (and inexpensive).

Worker's comp is also required in MD and DC, but not in VA (though personally I would get it regardless). So whether you are breaking the law by not having it depends on where you live.
Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 14:50     Subject: Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
Anonymous wrote:Another reason allowing a nanny to bring their own child to work is a BAD idea.

No one's paying for that, silly.
Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 14:43     Subject: Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
Another reason allowing a nanny to bring their own child to work is a BAD idea.
Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 12:31     Subject: Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
Anonymous wrote:Of please. The host parents could just say the child over playing. There's always a loop hole.

That should work fine as long as a parent is there.
Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 12:10     Subject: Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
Of please. The host parents could just say the child over playing. There's always a loop hole.
Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 11:43     Subject: Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
Anonymous wrote:I'm asking about the law, not the insurance plan

Location?
Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 11:28     Subject: Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
I'm asking about the law, not the insurance plan
Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 11:21     Subject: Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
Anonymous wrote:What law? Would appreciate it if you point it out. Thanks

Why don't you want to give your insurance agent a call, if you really want to know?
Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 11:14     Subject: Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
What law? Would appreciate it if you point it out. Thanks
Anonymous
Post 07/18/2014 10:50     Subject: Nanny Shares have NONE of the "assumed" insurance coverage. ANYWHERE.
If your nanny is providing paid care for another child in your home, the visiting child is EXCLUDED from any basic coverage. Same if you are paying your friend's nanny to care for your child in their home.

If there's an accident of any kind, the hosting family is held liable for breaking the law.