tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900910996765124811.post519033048385838815..comments2023-02-16T06:44:31.766-08:00Comments on Daniel Barnett's Employment Law Archive: Insurance Benefits for the over 65sDaniel Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18220625619507072144noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900910996765124811.post-46051862564787419732011-08-24T08:31:37.384-07:002011-08-24T08:31:37.384-07:00I am glad that you mentioned "self-insuring&q...I am glad that you mentioned "self-insuring" employers, but I am not sure that you went far enough. Where an employer (for employer add or trustees)by contract or trust provides a DIS beenfit, what it provides to the employee is the benefit, which I think is not affected if the employer deals with the risk by effecting insurance, because the insurance is not proivded to the employee. Therefore the provison of the benefits is not effected by the age limit. The Canada Life type of arrangement, in which the benefits are whatever is covered by "the Policy" probably can have the age limit, but qy whether this would be so if the emplopyer's contract terms or announcement spoke only of the benefit and not insurance.Roderick Ramagehttp://www.law-office.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900910996765124811.post-60451669226051035392011-02-28T08:20:51.243-08:002011-02-28T08:20:51.243-08:00"The government's attempt to turn this po..."The government's attempt to turn this policy objective into litigation..." Litigation? Surely some mistake? Or just telling it like it is? Preferable to Legislation I'm sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com