Database

Many people are still uncertain about the meaning and insurance implications of antibiotic resistance. For liability insurance the problem is one of quantum inflation and increased probability of claim. Antibiotic resistance directly means that the severity of problematic food poisoning and broken skin injuries increases, leading to quantum inflation and, people with severe injuries are more likely to claim, leading to frequency inflation. Claims for antibiotic resistance per se would be rare since resistance is  a naturally occurring event. Injury severity, premature death and the higher risks involved in elective medical interventions would have effects on life insurances. If all food was properly cooked, there would be no food poisoning claims. If wounds were thoroughly cleaned and disinfected the rate of severe infection would be reduced. Liability attaches to the cause of infection, not (yet) to the cause of resistance. A new technology is needed On the whole antibiotics do not im

A new publication describes the role of risk management in commercial nanotechnology projects. Risk appetite is the unifying concept. It follows that risk transfer is an essential component when there is uncertainty. The paper identifies commonly available measurements which scale with risk, are (to a large extent) mutually orthogonal with respect to risk, are generalisable across reasonably clear hazard groupings, remain valid when combined into a risk value and can be calibrated against research findings and commercial feedback. The limited set of these will not serve the highly sophisticated precautionary regulatory purpose. Quantitative nano-specific injury risk evaluation for regulatory purposes is still a long way off. In the mean time, risk generators and liability insurers may benefit from a shared approach to nano risks. Such an approach would support the development of expertise. The paper can be read free of charge until 28th May 2017. Included is a link to a free, confident

Britain is being asked to decide whether or not to be a member of the EU. Dire warnings and visions of heaven for either option are now common fare in conversations and media formats. Warnings and visions are usually vaguely attached to some semi-acceptable assertion, a half-explained mechanism of action, a snippet from some potentially relevant historical setting or an appeal to what some would see as self-interest. Career politicians are having a wonderful time of it. The key factors in judging the prospects of any institution all relate to the optimum development and use of resources. For this, we need facts and we need mechanisms of action that have predictive value within the range of foreseeable future facts. The list of resources is very lengthy. It includes: communication, the value of tradeable assets, ideas, education, transport, health, security, regulation, essential infrastructure, trade mechanisms, justice, political system… Mechanisms are essentially either; accide

Is there an exposure to asbestos which does not “legally cause” mesothelioma? Evidence from: C Gilham et al. Occup Environ Med (2015);0:1–10. doi:10.1136/oemed-2015-103074 Gilham et al, compared asbestos fibre burdens from the lungs of mesothelioma and lung cancer cases and from these, developed risk equations. 79% of the fibres they observed were amosite; the subjects were all resident in the UK. Fibre burden and diagnosis were objective and precise; which means the main uncertainties were in unintentional bias and biological variability, about which not much more could be done except by sub categorisation by genetic and epigenetic profile (which would require a much bigger study). Using mathematical methods adapted from the design of optical telescopes and electronic circuits, we have extended the reported analysis to make an original estimate of de minimis. Compared with background, and for asbestos fibres which are longer than 5 micrometres, the smallest detectable increase in the

Evidence from: liability exposure scenarios The Arium software uses official trade data to identify links between generators of risk, and via the product supply chain, the injured party. By adding liability insights, the hazard scenario can be tailored to explore the  most likely routes to exposure, i.e. a risk scenario. Sum limits and sum premium can be explicitly calculated from the insurance portfolio. The method is transparent, stress testable, reviewable and auditable. Calculations are analytical in nature. It is just algebra. The tool is ideally suited to the assessment of emerging liability risks. All you need is a scenario based on the state of knowledge. The scenario can be refined as knowledge develops. The Radar service is a great source of data for the development of scenarios. The next thing to do is supply Radar subscribers with pre-made scenarios on a number of emerging liability risks. These will be modified as and when new data emerges. Changes in exposure projections

This week sees global leaders getting together to talk about investment, market and legal mechanisms that may be applied to the political problem called climate change. It is a complex problem, made more complex by the rhetoric of belief vs.denial and self-interest vs.tribalism. Heated exchanges may be giving way to objective rationality. At the recent ABI conference there was a session on climate change, engineered to garner insurance industry support for a 2 degree pledge. Four famous promoters of the pledge took to the stage. Useful oral contributions included: Investment in the Energy Giants may have a limited shelf life, so better consider the resilience of investment income. (I noticed that no timescale was offered). Investments in other major industry players might be better placed if those players could state how much risk they were exposed to if the climate were to change as anticipated. (I wondered that of course the Officers of such firms are only obliged to declare material