Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Claims clubSeptember 2016, London
Revised UKRLG Codes of Practice – where are we now? James Fawcett, Browne JacobsonMalcolm Davies, Head of Risk, LB Croydon
Well-maintained Highway Infrastructure – revised COP • Original anticipated release date: October 2015
• Draft version 3 released 1/9/2016
• Comments requested by 12/9/2016
• Aim remains to publish by end September 2016 – unlikely we will see any significant revision
Well-maintained Highway Infrastructure
• Part A: overarching principles• Part B: highways • Part C: structures• Part D: lighting
Status of the revised Code• Revised Code (Draft 3):
Status of the revised Code• Revised Code (Draft 3)
Revised Code: overarching principles
Revised Code: Collaboration• The expectation that authorities will work
together remains:
Collaboration • Both internally within the authority and with other
authorities
“The authority’s designated corporate risk manager will be a key point of contact, as will departmental and team risk management leads”
• Identify the key decision makers
• Find strength in numbers with other authorities?
Revised Code: a risk-based approach remains at the heart of the Code
Developing and implementing a risk-based approach • Identify risks – intended to cover a diverse range of subjects (risk register) • Evaluate risks – the likelihood and consequence of a particular event• Manage risks – a coordinated approach to the management and mitigation
of risk. • Formulate a matrix?*
• Communication and Consultation – “for risk management to be fully embedded in an organisation the risk management process should be part of normal operations management”
• Monitoring and review – “Monitoring and review should be dynamic so that as risk levels change, an organisation’s approach to managing the risk can too”
*Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Guidance Document
Developing and implementing the risk-based approach• We can expect greater scrutiny of the regime in
place – something we rarely see at present
• Justification of the regime: The policy Master statement of senior highway engineer
detailing how the policy was established using the risk based approach – persuasive evidence
Network hierarchy
Network hierarchy • Is there an opportunity/appetite to refine or
simplify the current hierarchy?
• Is the current hierarchy fit for purpose?
• Consider the system of review - a dynamic hierarchy is envisaged
Safety inspections• Section B.5: Inspection, Assessment & Recording
Safety inspections – frequency • Revert to risk based approach – consider if there is there an
opportunity to reduce inspection frequency
• Review – as the characteristics of a highways changes/there are developments which improve safety, so to will the inspection frequency
Defect identification
Defect identification
Defect identification• A shift from interventions levels > investigatory
levels (assessment of risk)
• Greater scrutiny of the Highway Inspector’s decision making – potential to leave the inspector and authority vulnerable
• Evaluation of risk by reference to the risk assessment process – provides an opportunity to justify the decision
Competency and training
Competency and training • Training prior to implementation
• Ensure competency of contractors
• Practical guidance for inspectors and risk managers – mock trial to ‘stress test’ procedures?
Collaboration • Consideration of London regional standard• Inspection Frequency• Defect Identification (Investigatory Levels)• Defect Categorisation• Competency & Training• Learn from other live examples eg Greater
Manchester authorities
Noise Induced Hearing Loss
6th September 2016Mark HartSenior Actuary, UK Reserving Centre of Excellence
Agenda
What are Noise Induced Hearingfrom?
Loss Claims and where do they come
A bit of history
Some recent experience
A few thoughts about the future
2
© Z
uric
h
What are Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL)Claims?
Hearing loss arising from prolonged exposure to high noise levelsalmost always in the work place and therefore impact Employers’ Liability policies
Claims generally noticed as age related hearing loss sets in– Average age of claimant 60 - 65– Current claims predominantly from 1960s to early 1990s exposures
Dates employers deemed to be aware vary by industry – key date ofknowledge is 1963 with a raft of legislation since then.
UK Insurance industry is currently paying around £80m per yearbased on working party data, of which the major component remains claimant solicitor fees (c.3/4!)
3
© Z
uric
h
Noise Levels
10 dB - rustle of leaf20 dB - normal hearing threshold30 dB - whisper40 dB - residential area at night50 dB - normal speech at 1meter60 dB - busy office70 dB - loud radio at home80 dB - street traffic90 dB - weaving mill or heavy vehicle100 dB - circular saw or sheet metal shop110 dB - rock drill120 dB - propeller engine130 dB - pneumatic riveting140 dB - jet engine at 25 meters
4
© Z
uric
h
Noise level in dB(A) 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100-110 >110
Number of workers exposed 1,097,000 696,800 273,000 124,000 37,100 4,200
Adjusted 1 band for hearing protection 1,619,600 419,900 138,900 45,790 7,490 420
Adjusted 2 bands for hearing protection 1,224,316 343,663 117,997 38,595 6,303 353
Adjusted 3 bands for hearing protection 1,197,193 336,168 116,937 38,532 6,303 353
Prevalence by Occupation
5
© Z
uric
h
OccupationModerate or worse hearing
difficultySever hearing difficulty only
Other transport & machinery operatives 16.3%
2.4%Construction 11.5
%5.0%Material moving & storing 10.7
%5.4%Repetitive assembly and inspection 10.5
%2.6%Metal processing 8.9
%2.7%Other processing 6.6
%2.6%Electrical processing 4.9
%2.0%Managerial 4.2
%1.7%Clerical 3.8
%2.7%Selling 3.1
%1.0%All occupations 5.0
%1.9%
The History
6
© Z
uric
h
Average Cost Per Claim
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-
Average paid including nils by SY Average paid excluding nils by SY
Average legal fees of £10,400 per claim!
7
© Z
uric
h
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment ofOffenders Act 2012 & MOJ Portal
Resulted in a number of changes including:–––
Sentencing for first offendersRestricted the availability of legal aid in some casesIncreased powers of deportation of foreign criminals once their sentence has been servedCreated a new offence of ‘squatting’.
–
Vehicle used to enact changes to the funding arrangements for third party injury claims.––––
No longer able to recover success fees from losing partyQualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) introducedATE premium less recoverableBanning of referral fees
MOJ Portal
Introduction of fixed fees for claims in the portalIncrease of 10% in General DamagesSubset of claimsDidn’t really bite for disease
8
© Z
uric
h
Recent Experience
Monthly Notifications12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
2015 Q4
4,000
2,000
-
05 September 2016
© Z
uric
h
EL/PL Portal
LASPO Claimant Solicitor Activity
Low quality of claims
Development of Nil Rate by Notification Year100%
90%
80%
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243
Development Quarter
05 September 2016
© Z
uric
h
Settlement Rate
Proportion Closed100%
90%
80%
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
40 41 42 43Development Quarter
05 September 2016
© Z
uric
h
The Future?
LASPO & MOJ portal adjusted to be more relevant
Settlement packs and schemes set up
Changes to the guidelines for audiology tests
Introduction of repeat audiograms
MedCo for NIHL
Some hot topics: Implication of de minimis and latent
Claimant solicitors strugglinghearing loss
12
© Z
uric
h
Summary
After significant increases the picture appears to be stabilising
The increases seen historically are not as bad as suggested by thenumber of notifications alone – the nil rate is key, but doesn’t solve everything
While some big players are feeling the pressure, reforms have notgripped NIHL claims in the same way as some other claim types and further thought is required.
Many initiatives in discussion/on the horizon but a number of knownissues too – the future remains highly uncertain.
13
© Z
uric
h
