logo
Call us: +44 (0)1865 244727

  • Home
  • Scope
  • News
  • Products
    • RADAR
    • CALL-OFF PROJECTS
  • Clients
  • Contact
  • How we work
    • Independent
      • Common law orthodoxies
      • Sensationalism
      • Expert witness
      • Regulation and Politics
      • Tied services
    • Up-to-date
      • Timely
      • Insurance Scenarios
      • Probabilistic Methods
    • Expert
      • Personal Injury
      • Trends
    • Innovative
  • Database
    • Member’s login
    • Member’s Settings
    • Register
    • RADAR Database
  • Recent projects
    • EMFs
    • STRESS AT WORK
    • WHIPLASH
    • WELDING RODS: MANGANESE EXPOSURE
    • ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
    • Other Projects



Independent

Independence means we focus on objective analysis of the size
and uncertainty in any change. The customer assesses the meaning for his own business, records that judgement and explains the actions arising. He records what would need to change for the action to be changed. Compliance with solvency 2 pillar 2 assured and business plan confirmed or reviewed.

Independence means there is no vested interests protocol to go through before the information is made available to you and no targeting of the information. All subscribers get  the same information at the same time, without fear or favour. None-subscribers find out after subscribers have acted.

To remain independent, some clear thinking is needed on orthodoxies, sensationalism, expert witness work, regulation and tied services.

Of course, expertise tends to generate orthodoxies such as from toxicology:  the greater the dose the greater the risk, but we don’t accept orthodoxies at face value. Except one: The common law provides a set of orthodoxies within which liability insurance is supposed to operate. We aim to adopt those orthodoxies.

Sensationalism does have a role in decision-making, it challenges orthodoxy and can provide the impetus for change. We recognise that but don’t employ sensationalism ourselves.

The law also relies heavily on the evidence of expert witnesses. The Radar project must retain the freedom to criticise the evidence presented in court by experts. We have always declined the opportunity to present as experts because this inevitably leads to the need to defend an orthodoxy.

It would be very tempting to be involved with the regulatory agencies and with the political lobby work of insurance trade bodies.  It is essential that the Radar project be kept separate from these lest it become used as a tool for regulatory and political purposes.

Many service providers sell advertising space, work hand in hand with Brokers selling better deals and new wordings, aim to sell case management services, legal services and political influence. We are independent of tied services.

Independence means we focus on objective analysis of the size
and uncertainty in any change. The customer assesses the meaning for his own business, records that judgement and explains the actions arising. He records what would need to change for the action to be changed. Compliance with solvency 2 pillar 2 assured and business plan confirmed or reviewed.

Independence means there is no vested interests protocol to go through before the information is made available to you and no targeting of the information. All subscribers get  the same information at the same time, without fear or favour. None-subscribers find out after subscribers have acted.

To remain independent, some clear thinking is needed on orthodoxies, sensationalism, expert witness work, regulation and tied services.

Of course, expertise tends to generate orthodoxies such as from toxicology:  the greater the dose the greater the risk, but we don’t accept orthodoxies at face value. Except one: The common law provides a set of orthodoxies within which liability insurance is supposed to operate. We aim to adopt those orthodoxies.

Sensationalism does have a role in decision-making, it challenges orthodoxy and can provide the impetus for change. We recognise that but don’t employ sensationalism ourselves.

The law also relies heavily on the evidence of expert witnesses. The Radar project must retain the freedom to criticise the evidence presented in court by experts. We have always declined the opportunity to present as experts because this inevitably leads to the need to defend an orthodoxy.

It would be very tempting to be involved with the regulatory agencies and with the political lobby work of insurance trade bodies.  It is essential that the Radar project be kept separate from these lest it become used as a tool for regulatory and political purposes.

Many service providers sell advertising space, work hand in hand with Brokers selling better deals and new wordings, aim to sell case management services, legal services and political influence. We are independent of tied services.

Search Documents


Categories

  • Causation
    • de minimis
    • material contribution
  • Date of knowledge
  • Diagnosis
  • Duty of Care
  • Exposure estimation data
  • Mitigation
  • Motor related injury
  • News
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • November 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012

© Re: Liability (Oxford) Ltd. 2012. All rights reserved.
Website Design by The Big Picture