Given the cost and the impact upon what would be a very bad disaster, this indeed makes so much sense and also seems cheap in comparision to other benifits a company pays out for.

Few questions though on these types of policy:

1) What limitations are needed to be observed - must a company have a defined standard of health and safty and as such a defined quantifiable level of risk.

2) Are such policys only limited to accidents or directly measurable incidents that casue a disability in an employee or are outside area's like a bad skiing accident also covered. The whole area of say parkinsons and somebody who has a family history of it would that also be covered as that would be a disability reducing career situation.

3) The employers impact - loosing an employee is very costly and some more than others but whoever you lose will be a impact that is fiscaly measurable from cost of finding replacement and training time invested, down to extra overtime upon the others to pick up the slack until somebody else is upto speed. This is factoring in every thing is documented to the if I fall under a bus will my colleges be able to pick up the slack. So with that a little bit extra on the insurance policy to cover the Employer impact is also worth investing in if not already coevred. Especialy given the rates based on policy costs too me appearing cheap and rasing flags given the odd's of somebody getting cancer or a road accident that could very well limit there ability to work.

4) Quality of work, if somebody who was able to be very productive has an injury that whilst not preventing them from working, yet reduces there productivity in a measurable way - then how i that covered? This is probably a situation when you have a employee contract and that employee is so good he does other area's of work that everybody accepts without his contract being updated. I know many people in IT who have a contract saying that they are say a DBA and yet they do sys admin, backups and other tasks that build up that if they just worked to contract and did database work then other area's would fall apart. Though is very much a area of managment limits and avoiding giving people pay rises that just seems to happen. But in IT you would find your contract being very open in definition of your role or be updating that contract weekly (can you halp me move this printer - sure let me get that added to my contract so I'm allowed to move heavy objects) and could get silly. But from an impact perspective, if they can do a 2 week holiday without them being missed beyond there defined role then your probably safe, though if you end up calling them during that period then in short your being unfair to that employee (or allowing him to be unfair to his or her self, more the case); Which could have a noticable impact - not just in situations of them unable to do there job, but if they leave (which is how most communicate that they feel undervalued instead of talking with you about it, least with many IT types who are good at the job).

But for an employee, this type of cost for the return is frankly a no brainer given the example costs and with that I still can't help feel that the prices are perhaps too cheap and some actuary has messed up. I hope that ain't so, and my be that every other type of insurance is so over priced that I'm conditioned that way. But having worked in reinsurance, I do feel the risk and as such the cost of claim do seem somewhat out of sync and could be an insurance industries asbestos waiting to happen. But were all IT geeks and we now know how contracts and courts work so again this type of insurance for the cost is really just a no brainer that it can actualy save you and your family money to the extent that it is cheaper to insure the whole company instead of just yourself for family peace of mind - crazy and yet that is the case. But do check all the contract clauses as it does seem too cheap.