Workers Compensation vs Employers Liability Insurance: 5 Key Differences

workers compensation vs employers liability insurance

If you’re a business owner in Singapore, you might have come across Employers Liability Insurance, and Workers Compensation Insurance (also known as Work Injury Compensation Insurance, or WICA Insurance). These two types of insurance policies are related, but Workers Compensation Insurance offers vastly superior coverage compared to Employers Liability Insurance, without any significant difference in premiums.

In this article, we’ll cover the following points:

  1. 5 key differences between Workers Compensation Insurance vs Employers Liability Insurance
  2. Which policy should I get?
  3. Why is it important to insure my business against workers’ injuries?
  4. Where can I buy a Workers Compensation Policy?

Comparison between Workers Compensation Insurance vs Employers Liability Insurance:

Difference No.CoverageWorkers CompensationEmployers Liability
1Employer’s Liability under Common LawCovered Standard policies will typically provide $10 million annual coverageCovered Standard policies will typically provide $10 million annual coverage
2Medical Expenses Due to Work-Related Injury/DiseaseCoveredNot Covered
3Lost Wages While on Medical leave Due to Work-related injury/diseaseCoveredNot Covered
4Compensation for Work-Related Permanent DisabilityCoveredNot Covered
5Compensation for Work-Related DeathCoveredNot Covered

Let’s illustrate the differences between these two insurance policies with a couple of examples.

Example 1:
Say you run a construction company. One of your general workers accidentally suffers an arm fracture while operating heavy machinery. Your injured worker visits the A&E department to get his injury treated. Doctors determine surgery is necessary. The A&E consultation costs $150, and the surgery stitching costs $7,000. Your worker is prescribed a series of medications and rehabilitation sessions by the doctor, which costs $1,000. Your worker is provided with 2 months of medical leave. If we assume your employee earns a monthly salary of $1,000, then you’re liable to compensate your worker for $2,000 in lost wages ($1,000 per month, times two).

Here’s a handy table to summarise what costs Workers Compensation and Employers Liability would pay for, in this instance:

Work Injury ExpensesWorkers CompensationEmployers Liability
A&E Doctor’s Consultation Costs: $150CoveredNot Covered
Wound Stitching Costs: $100CoveredNot Covered
Medication Costs: $50CoveredNot Covered
Lost Wages for 7 Days of Medical Leave: $750CoveredNot Covered
Total Costs: $1,050$1,050 Covered$0 Covered

Workers Compensation Insurance would pay for all the costs stated in this illustration. However, Employers Liability Insurance would not pay for any of the costs incurred. If you only had an Employers Liability policy, you would have to pay $10,050 out of your own pocket. If you didn’t compensate your injured worker for these work-related injury expenses, they could simply file a report with MOM. It is a criminal offence to withhold compensation for work-related injuries/diseases, and penalties include up to 1 year in jail, and/or up to a $10,000 fine.

Let’s move now to our second illustration.

Example 2:
You run a construction company. One of your general workers was putting together scaffolding. Your worker accidentally falls from the scaffolding. Your safety harness, which the worker is wearing, has not been properly maintained, and breaks. Your worker plunges 10 metres to the ground below, and ends up permanently paralysed. Your injured worker sues you in court, alleging that you were negligent as an employer in ensuring that all equipment was properly maintained, and that you failed to provide a sufficiently safe work environment. The Courts side with the worker, and award damages of $300,000. Here’s a handy table to summarise what costs Workers Compensation and Employers Liability would pay for, in this example:

CostsWorkers CompensationEmployers Liability
Damages Awarded by the Courts, under Common Law Liability: $300,000CoveredCovered
Total Costs: $300,000$300,000 Covered$300,000 Covered


Both Workers Compensation Insurance and Employers Liability Insurance cover common law liabilities. In this example, either policy would protect you from the massive $300,000 costs that you’re liable to pay.

Which Policy Should I Get?

In the examples above, you can see that medical costs are covered only by a Workers Compensation policy. Common law liabilities are covered by both policies.

Viewed this way, Workers Compensation Insurance is essentially just a broader version of Employers Liability Insurance. The premium differences between Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance are insignificant, so it’s best to carry Work Injury Compensation Insurance.

The vast majority of businesses will purchase Workers Compensation over Employers Liability Insurance. Carrying only Employers Liability Insurance is not a common practice. Given the very narrow coverage it provides, this is not a recommended way to protect your business against employment-related liabilities.

Why Is It Important to Insure My Business Against Workers’ Injuries?

In 2021, 22,186 workers suffered work-related injuries in Singapore. Of this large pool of workers, 610 workers suffered major injuries, such as amputations of their limbs. 37 workers tragically lost their lives. Work-related injuries are common. If your employee gets injured due to work, you have to compensate them, and those compensation costs could potentially run into the tens (or hundreds!) of thousands. Such heavy costs could severely impact your business’ financial health. If your employee were to suffer a severe work-related injury, and the resulting compensation ran into the hundreds of thousands, your business could even go bankrupt.

Premiums for Workers Compensation Insurance are very affordable. It’s therefore vital to exchange a relatively small annual premium, in exchange for significant protection against your legal liabilities if one of your workers gets injured, or contracts a disease, due to work.

Where Can I Buy a Workers Compensation Policy?

You can purchase Workers Compensation Insurance on our website, in just 3 minutes!

What is the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC)?

what is asic

What is the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC)?

Are you a financial services company based in Singapore, looking to do overseas business in Australia? If you want to expand your operations into Australia, you’re going to be regulated by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). Make sure you know ASIC regulations that you have to follow when you’re providing financial services over in Australia. Here’s a primer on what ASIC is, what they do, and some notable cases they’ve prosecuted in recent times.

Purpose

ASIC is an independent authority of the Australian government. ASIC administer the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (ASIC Act). ASIC’s purpose is to regulate companies, and ensure compliance with corporate and financial security laws to protect Australian investors, consumers and creditors.

ASIC’s role involves:

  • Maintaining and improving the Australian financial system
  • Promoting fair and knowledgeable participation in the Australian financial system
  • Carrying out the law under the powers granted by the ASIC Act and related legislation

Who ASIC Regulates

Financial services businesses: ASIC oversees firms operating in this industry to ensure they operate in a fair, lawful and ethical manner.

Consumer credit: ASIC issues licenses and oversees businesses that lend money out. ASIC ensures such businesses maintain compliance with the rules found in the 2009 National Consumer Credit Protection Act.

Markets: ASIC acts as the supervisory body for the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). ASIC ensures that market activity is fair and transparent, and that no bad actors are manipulating the market for their own benefit.

The overall goal of overseeing activity across these 3 broad parties is to protect participants in the Australian financial system from wrongdoing, and to encourage growth by building an open and law-abiding financial ecosystem.

History  

ASIC was first founded in 1991 as the Australian Services Commission (ASC). It was founded to replace the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) and the Corporate Affairs offices of various Australian territories. Its name was changed to the current ASIC in 1998.

In 2010, ASIC was granted additional powers and duties. ASIC now oversees consumer credit, financial broking services, and regulates the trading on various Australian securities markets.

Powers and Responsibilities

ASIC has 3 main powers and responsibilities:

Registration and Licensing

ASIC handles the registration of financial services companies, and manages publicly available registers of companies.

Regulation

ASIC can ban or censure firms that do not comply with laws under the ASIC Act. ASIC also introduces legislation to make the financial markets more fair, more efficient, and more transparent.

Enforcement

ASIC can investigate breaches of financial laws. The body can levy fines and prosecute individuals and companies that have been found to violate such regulations.

Notable Cases

Westpac fined AUD 9.15 million as a result of ASIC investigation

In December 2019, The Federal Court of Australia filed an order against Westpac Banking Corporation, ordering the renowned lender to pay AUD 9.15 million for a string of regulatory breaches. The bank had allowed one of its former financial advisors, Mr. Sudhir Sinha, to provide financial advice to its clients that were in contravention of its best interests’ duties and other obligations under the 2001 Corporations Act. Westpac Bank was judged to have direct liability for these regulatory transgressions.

The judgement stems from a case first filed in June 2018, when ASIC lodged a civil suit against Westpac bank for breaching its duties under the 2001 Corporations Act. ASIC’s investigations into Westpac revealed various regulatory breaches. Mr. Sinha did not act in his clients’ best interests, had offered them unsound financial advice, and did not prioritise his clients’ financial interests. Westpac had known about these issues since as early as 2010, when internal reviews conducted by the bank surfaced these breach of duties. However, Mr. Sinha kept his position. Only 4 years later, in 2014, did Westpac fire Mr. Sinha, and the bank only reported Mr. Sinha’s unlawful conduct to ASIC in 2015.

During the trial, Westpac admitted that it had breached the Corporations Act. The presiding judge, Justice Wigney, found that Westpac had failed to properly monitor the behaviour of Mr. Sinha. Even when the bank knew about Mr. Sinha’s unlawful conduct, it failed to intervene as it should have. Instead, the bank simply let the rogue employee continue with his unlawful actions, which were a direct breach of the bank’s regulatory duties. Justice Wigney also found that Westpac stood to profit from Mr. Sinha’s actions, as his advice was bringing in clients and commission fees to the bank. The bank had placed profit above its duties to operate in an honest and transparent manner, which benefitted the bank and its advisors at the expense of their clients.

In its decision, the Court found Mr Sinha failed to act in the best interests of his clients, provided inappropriate financial advice, and failed to prioritise the interests of his clients, in four sample client files identified by ASIC.  Westpac is directly responsible for the breaches of the best interests obligations by Mr Sinha under section 961K of the Act.

If it had not been for ASIC’s thorough investigation and strong enforcement of financial securities laws, Westpac bank might have continued to profit at the expense of its clients.

ASIC initiates civil penalties against RI advice and ex-financial advisor, Jon Doyle

In October 2019, ASIC began court action against RI Advice Group Pty Ltd (RI Advice) and an ex-financial adviser, Mr. John Doyle. Before its recent acquisition by IOOF Holdings Limited, RI Advice operated as an ANZ financial advisory business.

In its civil suit, ASIC filed allegations that RI Advice had failed ensure with reasonable care that Mr. Doyle provided financially sound advice to his clients. RI Advice had also failed to ensure Mr. Doyle had acted in his clients’ best interests. These are duties required under the 2001 Corporations Act. Mr. Doyle worked for RI Advice from 2013 to 2016.

The civil suit also names Mr. Doyle as a defendant. ASIC filed claims that Mr. Doyle provided unsound advice that was not tailored to each individual client. This advice involved urging the clients to invest in risky and complex structured financial products: Instreet’s Masti S&P500/ASX 36 and 38, and the Macquarie Flexi 100 Trust. He had provided such advice without properly considering his clients’ financial background, risk appetite, and investment objectives.

Some of the clients that Mr. Doyle provided advice to were nearing retirement, which would make them unsuitable for such risky products. ASIC’s suit alleges that Mr. Doyle had acted in his own interests ahead of his clients, because he would have received commission fees for each of his client’s investments, with larger commissions for more exotic products like the structured funds he was recommending.

The lawsuit claims that RI Advice either had knowledge of, or should have had knowledge of, a significant possibility that Mr. Doyle was acting in a non-compliant manner with his duties under financial services laws. Mr. Doyle had repeatedly been pushing structured products to his clients, many of which were unsuitable for such high-risk investments. RI Advice did not operate the proper compliance processes to ensure such unlawful behaviour was not taking place.

Under Australia’s financial securities laws, RI advice is facing up to $1 million in fines per contravention. Mr. Doyle faces up to $200,000 per contravention.