Evidence from: DWP 14th June 2013 A review of the health and safety executive as a non-departmental public body HSE annual budget is ~£3oom. That is roughly equivalent to 20% of the EL insurance premium collected in the same operational area. HSE have contact with 60% of employers every 3 years, insurers have contact with 85% of employers every year (15% don’t buy EL even when they should, HSE and local authorities are not always great at compliance). HSE claim to have saved the UK from unnecessary costs that would have followed from EC Directives had they not been intercepted. This, political work in addition to its main activities, which are: • Lead others to improve health and safety in the workplace; • Provide an effective regulatory framework; • Secure compliance with the law; and, • Reduce the likelihood of low frequency, high-impact catastrophic incidents. The latter two would seem, in part, to require a non-commercial solution which is independent of political influence a
Evidence from: tp97_kendrink_underwriting_new_normal_18june2013. A personal view from Andrew Kendrick – well worth reading. Published by CII. http://www.cii.co.uk/search-results/?q=thinkpiece+97&searchIn=site In particular on page 4, a plea for risk based pricing, without which the sustainability of an insurer seems more and more to depend on good fortune. How long will investors, regulators and policy-holders tolerate a ‘good luck’ argument? Comment Some insurance products have a strategic role to play in lubricating the economy. My suspicion is that these will be the focus of the insurance regulator. Risk based pricing and transparent systems for managing emerging risks will be very important to them. Margin, market share and group exposure cannot always be traded off against each other, at some point insurance must keep its promises.
Evidence from:  EWHC 520 (QB) 13th March 2013 Hill and Billingham v Lloyd’s British Inspection Services Ltd Exposure to asbestos dust occurred in 1968. Was there a breach of duty? HM Factory Inspectorate’s Technical Data Note (TDN) 13, issued in March 1970 was presented as representing the duty of care standard of around about that time. The judge (Mr Bean) regarded the generally low background exposure to be irrelevant, focussing instead on showers of dust dislodged from overhead structures. He accepted that peak exposures of a few seconds duration would be at up to 100 f/ml. Unfortunately, TDN13 includes express provision for such peak exposures. These are to be measured over a 10 minute period. Background level is critical to deciding what the 10 minute average would be. Using basic physics (CFD would be preferred) the following estimates are made: If arbitrarily set at a maximum allowable 2 f/ml background, allowing 100f/ml exposure to persist for an unlikely 10 seconds