An employee whose wife suffered from breast cancer was terminated after a change of ownership of the company. He asked whether their health insurance would continue, and was told verbally that it would. Nine months later when his wife sought treatment, she was advised the policy had been terminated. He and his wife sued for a violation of COBRA. The court should rule:
a. for the employer, since it was a new owner, and not the employer of the employee.
b. for the employer, since the employee never requested in writing that their insurance be continued
c. for the employee, since he was not given notice of his COBRA rights in writing
d. for the employee's wife, because she was also an insured, but was given no notice of her COBRA rights
D
You might also like to view...
36. When you ask yourself “What do I know? Whom do I know?” you are practicing which component of The Practice of Entrepreneurship?
a. Identifying your desired impact on the world b. Starting with the means at hand c. Describing the idea today d. Calculating affordable loss
In the Palsgraf case, foreseeability was an issue. The question addressed by the court was:
A) Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that the scales would fall? B) Was it foreseeable to Ms. Palsgraf that her injury would have been caused by an explosion? C) Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that someone in the train station would be carrying explosive fireworks? D) Was it foreseeable to the railroad employee helping the passenger onto the train that doing so might lead to injury to Ms. Palsgraf or another bystander? E) Was it foreseeable to the passenger carrying the fireworks that they might explode and injure someone?
In most courts, accountants are subject to liability for negligence only to their clients.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Product standards may constitute Technical Barriers to Trade
Indicate whether the statement is true or false