New Hampshire
Workers' Comp Exemption

New Hampshire wants the policy in place before—not after—the first hire

The Department of Labor's employer guide says the primary responsibility for coverage rests on employers and that coverage must be obtained before hiring any employee. That timing is more useful for a new business than waiting for a payroll or employee-count milestone after operations begin.

RSA 281-A's employer definition also starts with a person or entity employing one or more people, although executive officers and LLC members/managers receive special treatment in the counting rules.

An owner-only business planning its first hire should therefore solve the coverage question before the worker starts. An owner exclusion does not give the company a grace period for ordinary employees.

The officer/member exclusion is capped at three people

RSA 281-A:18-a allows a corporation or limited liability company to elect to exclude up to three executive officers or members from compulsory coverage. The statute also says no exclusion is valid unless it is properly filed with the commissioner.

The three-person limit is not merely a premium calculation detail. The broader employer-definition provision says executive officers and LLC members/managers in excess of three are counted as employees for determining employer status in the ordinary rule.

A four-owner LLC should therefore not assume that all four working members can be treated like the first three. The owner roster and the actual people named on the filing need to be checked together.

Form 6WCex is a carrier filing, not a certificate the owner self-issues

Lab 300 assigns the filing mechanics to the insurance side. The carrier completes and files the paper Exclusion of Executive Officers or Members form 6WCex with the Department when the exclusion applies.

The rules also require an underlying Notice of Workers Compensation Insurance Coverage, Form 6WC, to already be on file for the same employer. A standalone owner form without the employer's coverage record is not valid.

This design is a good reason to ask the carrier for confirmation that the filing reached the Department. Keeping only a locally signed copy does not prove the statutory filing requirement was completed.

Changing carriers automatically creates a new 6WCex task

New Hampshire's rules specifically say that when the employer changes carriers, the new carrier must complete and file a new 6WCex. The old exclusion should not be treated as portable proof across policies.

Every new filing must list all officers or members the employer wants excluded. The rules warn that failure to complete the form accurately and fully negates the entire form.

Policy renewal and carrier replacement should therefore include an owner-exclusion checkpoint: reconcile the legal officer/member list, decide who remains excluded, and confirm the new filing rather than waiting until a claim exposes the omission.

On an injury date, the Department's file—not the owner's intent—determines the exclusion

Lab 300 says that in the event of an injury, the 6WCex on file with the Department on the date of injury is the determining document for whether the officer or member is excluded.

That rule makes late paperwork particularly risky. An owner and carrier may agree that a person should be excluded, but if the proper filing was not on file when the injury happened, the business cannot rely on intention alone.

A simple internal control is to store the carrier confirmation and the finalized excluded-person list with the policy. Review it immediately after ownership changes, appointment of new officers, or carrier transitions.

An owner exclusion does not solve the subcontractor-coverage problem

The New Hampshire employer guide warns businesses that use subcontractors to confirm those subcontractors have arranged the workers' compensation coverage required for their employees. Otherwise the hiring business may be held liable for compensation owed to the subcontractor's injured employees.

RSA 281-A:18-a protects properly excluded officers/members from being treated as uninsured employees of a subcontractor, but that is a narrow point. It does not convert everyone working for the subcontractor into an excluded owner.

For project files, keep owner-exclusion proof separate from the subcontractor's certificate of insurance. They answer different questions and should not be used interchangeably.

What failing to insure actually costs in New Hampshire

New Hampshire layers a flat one-time fine on top of a daily per-employee fine, so the total keeps climbing the longer coverage is missing — and a purposeful failure escalates all the way to a felony.

Under RSA 281-A:7, an employer that fails to provide required coverage faces a one-time fine of $2,500, plus $100 per employee for each day the business goes without coverage.

Separately, failing to file required coverage information under RSA 281-A:7 can draw a civil penalty of $50 per day of noncompliance, and the state can suspend the employer's ability to do business in New Hampshire while it remains noncompliant. A purposeful failure to secure coverage can be charged as a class B felony.

• One-time fine: $2,500, plus $100 per employee per day without coverage
• Missed coverage-information filing: $50/day
• Purposeful failure to secure coverage: class B felony