Lessons from Distracted Driving Awareness Month

June is Distracted Driving Awareness Month, and while it is quickly drawing to a close, the message remains: Distracted driving is escalating, with 25% more vehicle accidents resulting from drivers talking or texting on cellphones. More cars on the road, especially during summer months, also translates to more accidents.

Organizations with fleets should take note as motor vehicle crashes are the number-one cause of work-related deaths, accounting for 24% of all fatal occupational injuries, according to the National Safety Council (NSC). On-the-job crashes are also costly, with employers sustaining costs of more than $24,500 per property damage crash and $150,000 per injury crash.

Zurich sums up NSC statistics:
Employers can and are being held liable for damages resulting from employee accidents. “We might expect an employer to be held liable for a crash involving a commercial driver’s license holder who was talking on a cell phone with dispatch about a work-related run at the time of an incident—especially if the employer had processes or a workplace culture that made drivers feel compelled to use cell phones while driving,” the NSC said.

The lines believed to exist between employment-related and personal or private life get blurred in some cases involving:

  • Cell phones owned by employees as well as employer-provided equipment
  • Vehicles that were employee-owned as well as employer-owned or leased
  • Situations where employees were driving during non-working hours or were engaged in personal phone calls

To protect themselves and their employees, the NSC recommended that organizations implement and enforce a total ban policy.

“The best practice is to prohibit all employees from using any cell phone device while driving in any vehicle during work hours or for work-related purposes. Regarding off-the-job hours, precedent has been set by lawsuits. Thus employers may want to extend their policies to cover off-the-job use of company-provided wireless devices, use of personally-owned devices that are reimbursed by the company, and use of devices in company-provided vehicles. All work-related cell phone use while driving should be banned 24/7,” the NSA advised.

Companies should also pay attention to other common distractions that can lead to accidents, Zurich adds:

Marsh Tracks Top Captive Trends

The number of captive insurers continues to increase globally, from 5,000 in 2006 to more than 7,000 in 2016. Once formed primarily by large companies, the captive market has opened up to mid-size and small businesses. The industry is also seeing a trend in companies forming more than one captive, using them for cyber, political risk and other exposures, according to a recent Marsh report, Captives at the Core: The Foundation of a Risk Financing Strategy.

Organizations are seeing disruptions in a number of areas and are relying more on their existing captives, Marsh said. Because of their flexibility, captives are also being used to respond to market cycles and organizational changes such as mergers and acquisitions.

While North America and Europe still dominate in numbers of captives, other regions have shown more interest in the past three years. In Latin America, captive formation increased 11% in 2016, the study found.

Within the United States, there is more competition among domiciles and some of the newer domiciles are experiencing growth. The top-growing U.S. domiciles in 2016 were Texas, Connecticut, Nevada, New Jersey, Tennessee, and New York. Domiciles outside the U.S. seeing the most growth include Sweden, Guernsey, Singapore, Malta, and the Cayman Islands.
As organizations’ exposures increase in number, complexity and severity, shareholder funds generated by captives are becoming more important. According to Marsh:

For many clients, captives are at the core of their risk management strategy, going beyond the financing of traditional property/casualty risks.

Specifically, we are seeing an increase in parent companies using captive shareholder funds to underwrite an influx of new and non-traditional risks, including cyber, supply chain, employee benefits, and terrorism, as well as to develop analytics associated with these risks and fund other risk management initiatives.

Risk management projects funded by captive shareholder funds in 2016 included initiatives to determine capital efficiency and optimal risk retention levels in the form of risk-finance optimization; quantify cyber business-interruption exposures; accelerate the closure of legacy claims; and improve workforce and fleet safety/loss control policies.

For example, Marsh-managed captives used to address cyber liability increased by 19% from 2015 to 2016. Since 2012, in fact, cyber liability programs in captives have skyrocketed 210%.
“We expect to see a continued increase, driven in part by companies that are already strong captive users and by those that may have difficulty insuring their professional liability risks,” Marsh said.

Should You Respond to a Reservation of Rights Letter?

An organization buys insurance to transfer certain types of risks (depending on the policies purchased). If a covered event occurs that results in a loss, you submit a claim and get paid. Simple, right? That’s how it would seem, but many experienced risk managers know it doesn’t always go that smoothly.

A recent RIMS Executive Report discusses one of the most common instances when things don’t go according to plan, and the insurer sends along some unpleasant surprises. In “A Risk Manager’s Guide to Reservation of Rights,” we learn how an insurer protest against paying a claim is commonly initiated and communicated: the dreaded reservation of rights letter.

In case you’ve never had the pleasure of receiving one, a reservation of rights letter is “a notice that the insurer has reserved its rights to either limit or deny coverage for the claim, based on the terms and conditions of the policy or information uncovered in an investigation of the claim itself.” In other words, these legal notices can become hurdles for an organization trying to realize the value of the insurance it has purchased.

Many risk managers do nothing when they receive this letter—they assume that the insurer will act in good faith and everything will work out. The authors of the RIMS Executive Report, however, strongly encourage a more active response. At the very least, the risk manager should compare the wording of the letter to the insurance policy language in question, as well as draft a response to the letter. The authors state: “Generally, there is no requirement that a policyholder respond to an insurer’s reservation of rights letter, disagreeing with the reservation or the bases thereof. However, it is highly recommended that the policyholder do so.”

A response letter might look something like this:
In some cases, a well thought-out response can save an organization a large amount of money. A good example is the common insurer-proposed reservation to recover defense costs spent on defending a policyholder if the insurer determines at a later date that it did not, in fact, have a responsibility to defend. In order to reject this reservation and the big legal bills that could come with it down the road, many jurisdictions in the United States require that the insured respond to the reservation of rights letter and specifically disagree with this detail.

According to the authors: “Receipt of a reservation of rights notice should prompt a review by risk managers…leading to an informed decision and deliberate action: whether to accept the insurer’s interpretation of the coverage and defense obligations, or respond with a reservation of its own rights. If not, unexpected and unintended consequences may result.”

The report also includes more in-depth information on obligatory communications, the use of tolling agreements and conflicts of interest that arise in these situations. In a reservation of rights situation, there can be some tricky territory to navigate. For example, insureds are almost always contractually obligated to cooperate with the insurer’s investigation and defense of claims. Failure to communicate or cooperate with these efforts can be a breach of contract and result in loss of coverage. It is important for the insured (i.e., the risk manager) to “understand its obligations in the claims management and settlement process, and the continuing obliga­tions when a reservation of rights notification is issued.”

The balancing act is that “Insureds need to continue cooperating…regardless of any coverage disputes, to preserve the continuity of claim management as well as meet the policy obligation.”

As the coordinator between functional areas and the in-house risk expert, risk professionals have an important role in all of these stages.

Record Snowpack Brings Mixed Blessings to California

This year’s Sierra Nevada snowpack, one of the largest on record, has brought relief to California, which is still reeling from a five-year drought followed by record flooding. The snowpack is twice its average size, with some areas as deep as 80 feet, according to NASA. But with some rivers and dams still at higher than average levels, the fear is that warm temperatures or heavy rainfall will cause the snows to melt faster and bring more flooding.

Colorado and other mountain states, which also experienced heavy snowfall this winter are also concerned with runoff issues. Canada has faced severe runoff problems, after a heat wave earlier this spring resulted in major flooding in Quebec and British Columbia, the Wall Street Journal reported.

“The real wild card is if we get hit with a big rain event,” Frank Gehrke, chief snow surveyor for the California Department of Water Resources, told the Wall Street Journal as he monitored a rushing stream in late May. “That could throw the whole system into tilt.”

The Los Angeles Times reported last month that the rapid snowmelt has kept public agencies busy managing water levels across the state’s network of reservoirs. Water district managers must conduct daily conference calls to coordinate releases of water in order to monitor the amounts released into California’s rivers, creeks, bypasses and canals. This coordination is critical, as reservoir releases impact water levels downstream for days. Since one reservoir’s release may meet with another, managers must determine how much water the rivers and levees can support before overflowing.

A number of dams levees and weirs in the state are at least 60 years old, and in some areas more than 100 years old, according to a state Legislative Analyst’s Office report. It noted that flood-management responsibilities in California are spread across more than 1,300 agencies managing an infrastructure of more than 20,000 miles of levees and channels and more than 1,500 dams and reservoirs.

One reservoir in Los Angeles, the Silver Lake Reservoir, is benefiting from the snowpack and ample water supply. No longer used to store drinking water, the reservoir was drained in 2015. It sat empty and was seen as an eyesore, until recently when it was able to be refilled ahead of schedule.

According to the L.A. Times, the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council expressed its pleasure that the reservoir was refilled. The council’s co-chair, Anne-Marie Johnson, a second-generation Silver Lake resident, said she is “more than excited” that the landmark will no longer be an eyesore. “I am grateful to Mother Nature for providing us an abundance of snow. I don’t take that for granted,” she said.