52
Claims club September 2016, Exeter
| Date post: | 27-Jan-2017 |
| Category: |
Law |
| Upload: | browne-jacobson-llp |
| View: | 52 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Claims clubSeptember 2016, Exeter
Revised UKRLG Codes of Practice – where are we now? James Fawcett, Browne Jacobson Andrew Cole, Devon County Council
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?
Devon County Council
Highway Safety InspectionsA New Direction
Andy Cole IEng FIHEHighway Safety Inspection and Reactive
Engineer
Some Facts and Figures
• 13,000km of Carriageway• 3000km of Footway• Mix of Urban and Rural• £5.6m Revenue Budget• Approximately 20% Overall Revenue
Budget• 13 Dedicated Inspectors• National Qualification• On IHE Safety Inspectors Register
Drivers for Change
• Revision of NCoP (Well-managed Highways Infrastructure)
• Developing a more risk based approach
• Need to drive efficiencies• More collaborative working• Cross boundary consistency• Reasonable and measured
response times
Inspection Delivery Changes
Risk Based Inspection Process and Why• Previous policy was very prescriptive• No flexibility to respond quicker• No ability not to repair when risk low• Not always efficient• Repeat visits
What’s Happened So Far
• DCC Cabinet October 2015• Approved trials to the 2013
HSIM• Approved the development of
a risk based approach• Amendments to policy
introduced 7th December 2015
• New policy implemented 5th September 2016
Summary of Key Changes
Summary of Key Changes• Gaps and trips on kerbs written out (except
crossing points) on F/W 2,3&4 redefined on F/W 1• Roadmarkings redefined (70% worn)• Standard response times removed• Risk assessed response• New defect categorisation
Risk Based Approach
Process Flow
Risk Matrix
GuidelinesRisk Based Inspection Proposal
PROBABILITY / LIKELIHOOD OF INTERACTION WITH HIGHWAY USER
GuidelinesRisk Based Inspection Proposal LIKELY IMPACT
Worked Example 1Defect - Carriageway pothole M/C – 3 Position of defect – wheel track Dimensions – 45mm deep and 350mm in a horizontal direction Assessment procedure
1. Does the defect meet the minimum intervention level 2. Consider the probability/likelihood score 3. Consider the impact score 4. Calculate the level of risk 5. Apply outcome and assign the appropriate response time
Answers
1. Yes, the minimum intervention level is 40mm deep and 300mm in any horizontal direction
2. Probability/likelihood almost certain, carriageway is m/c3 and defect is in the wheel track. The probability/likelihood score is 5
3. Impact high, pothole may cause vehicular damage, loss of control impact lower unless a cyclist or motorcyclist however this is mitigated by less likelihood of an interaction with the defect. The impact score is 4.
4. Probability/likelihood x impact = level of risk. 5 x 4 = 20
5. Level of risk 20 is a Category 1 defect requiring an end of next working day response.
Example 2Defect – Footway Pothole Footway Maintenance Category – 2 Position of defect – against the boundary wall Dimensions – 30mm deep and 70mm in a horizontal direction Assessment procedure
1. Does the defect meet the minimum intervention level 2. Consider the probability/likelihood score 3. Consider the impact score 4. Calculate the level of risk 5. Apply outcome and assign the appropriate response time
Answers 1. Yes, the minimum intervention level is 20mm deep and 50mm in any horizontal direction 2. Probability/likelihood unlikely, footway is m/c 2 and defect is in the against a boundary wall.
The probability/likelihood score is 2 3. Impact minor, the potential impact on an individual if they were to be tripped up is high. The
impact score is 3. 4. Probability/likelihood x impact = level of risk.
2 x 3 = 6 5. Level of risk 6 is a Category 3 defect to be repaired within the next 28 days.
Example 3Defect – Footway trip Footway Maintenance Category – 1 Position of defect – underside of bench Dimensions – 30mm vertical level difference Assessment procedure
1. Does the defect meet the minimum intervention level 2. Consider the probability/likelihood score 3. Consider the impact score 4. Calculate the level of risk 5. Apply outcome and assign the appropriate response time
Answers 1. Yes, the minimum intervention level is 20mm vertical level difference 2. Probability/likelihood rare, footway is m/c1 and defect is under the bench. The
probability/likelihood score is 2 3. Impact high, the potential impact on an individual if they were to be tripped up is high. The
impact score is 1. 4. Probability/likelihood x impact = level of risk.
2 x 1 = 2 5. Level of risk 4 is a Category 4 therefore consider an appropriate response including no
further action/monitor. NOTE The position of the defect will not pose any risk to a highway user therefore an option being considered is the policy advises defects that pose no risk are not recorded.
Training
• System being tested by Team• Basic risk assessment course in February• Supported by highway specific examples• New system used in parallel with current process• Ongoing support and evaluation• Roll out training across the service• ELearning Module being developed• Team specific training
Progress• Smooth transition to new regime• Inspectors generally happy• Numerous Cat 4 defects• More efficient and effective
But• Continue to monitor inspections• Support and advise inspectors• Review how we respond to Public
Thank You
Noise Induced Hearing Loss
22nd September 2016Kathy GuReserving Actuary, Zurich Municipal
Agenda
• What are Noise Inducedfrom?
Hearing 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 injury claims.
for third party
––––
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
-
21 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
21 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
21 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 struggling
hearing 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
