Heat-related illness claims are a small slice of the overall claims picture, but rising temperatures, expanding safety regulations and growing awareness of the exposure are prompting insurers and employers to look more closely at heat as a broader workplace injury risk.
Research by the Workers Compensation Research Institute found that workplace heat-related illnesses increase at least sevenfold on days when temperatures exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit compared with days between 75 and 80 degrees. The study, released in 2024 and based on 2013 to 2022 workers comp claims data from 31 states, found heat-related illnesses accounted for just 0.21% of overall comp claims, but also found evidence that heat contributes to other injuries, including falls and cuts.
That broader injury connection is where comp professionals say the industry is paying closer attention.
“If you just looked at that in workers compensation, heat as a proximate cause … there’s not a lot of those claims,” said Rich Ives, Hartford, Connecticut-based senior vice president of business insurance claim for Travelers. “The bigger risk is the correlation to things like impairment, distraction, being fatigued.”
Travelers’ analysis found a correlation between extreme heat and workers comp claim frequency, particularly on days with heat indexes above 110 degrees, Mr. Ives said. But the most pronounced increases were not necessarily in places accustomed to extreme heat, such as Phoenix. Instead, they appeared in regions where extreme heat represented a sharp departure from normal conditions, such as the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.
Those findings are shaping the message to employers: heat planning cannot be limited to traditionally hot states or outdoor industries.
“Heat is no longer just an environmental condition,” said Phillip Maddox, Advance, North Carolina-based workers comp risk management technical director at Nationwide. “It really is a performance and decision-making risk, and it often shows up as a hidden factor behind other serious claims.”
Heat does not just drive heat-stress claims, he said. It can quietly increase overall workers comp frequency through secondary traumatic injuries such as falls, vehicle accidents and incidents tied to fatigue, reduced grip strength or impaired judgment.
“Heat rarely travels alone,” he said. “It’s going to amplify risk. It’s going to turn routine incidents into lost-time claims.”
Employers should not wait for a final federal heat standard or state-specific rules before acting, Mr. Maddox said. Instead, they should use existing guidance and emerging rules as blueprints for hydration, acclimatization, rest breaks, supervisor training, work scheduling and environmental monitoring, he said.
“The strongest heat programs, they don’t wait for workers to raise their hand,” he said. “They assume that heat affects judgment.”
That approach is becoming more important as more states adopt or consider heat-safety requirements and as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration continues to focus on heat exposure. Workers comp experts said those developments could influence how claims are investigated, even if they do not automatically determine compensability.
Regulatory and legal experts say the more significant comp issue may be how heat changes the risk analysis of injuries that might not have previously been viewed as occupational.
Michele Hibbert, San Diego-based senior vice president of regulatory compliance and governmental affairs for Enlyte, said heat-related workers comp issues are still developing, but COVID-19 helped normalize broader causation arguments and presumptions in comp systems. While there has not been a statutory movement creating heat presumptions in workers comp, disputes will likely emerge first through litigation, she said.
That shift could matter for claims involving falls, cardiac events or other injuries that may once have been treated as unrelated to employment. A fall that might previously have been considered idiopathic, for example, could become more contested if it occurred during a high-heat workday, she said.
“It was heat,” Ms. Hibbert said, describing the kind of argument that may arise. “I fell because my hands were slippery, they were sweating.”
For claims professionals, that means heat may become part of the factual record. Ambient temperature, heat index, physical workload, duration of exposure, personal protective equipment, access to shade and water, rest breaks and acclimatization practices may all be considered when determining whether heat materially contributed to an injury.
Heat risk is becoming “a structural workplace exposure,” particularly in construction, transportation, agriculture and warehousing, said Matt Hannon, New York-based U.S. national casualty practice leader at Aon. While heat claims have not driven major changes in workers comp program structures, more frequent and severe heat events are increasing pressure on employers to manage the exposure before losses occur, he said.
“The prevention isn’t just about safety,” he said. “It’s about directly reducing the claim severity, lost time and the litigation risk.”
Chris Iovino, New York-based head of risk consulting for North America at Aon, said heat has not yet risen to the top of most large employers’ loss analytics. For now, he said, many discussions focus on regulatory compliance and ensuring employers are managing the exposure appropriately.
This article was first published in Business Insurance
