Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 31 July 2002 14:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Karl Curtis It is sad reflection of todays society that I am pestered almost on a weekly basis by a variety of ambulance chasers hanging around outside my local supermarket. "Had an accident at work mate? Do you have any aches from lifting or working at your computer?" Ahhh I never knew so many people cared about my personal well being until now. "Dont worry mate we'll sort out all your legal fees even if you lose" What chance is there of that? The every fact that they will take your case on knows that they are on to a winner. I turn on commecial radio and they hound me I turn on commercial TV and there they are again. It seems like these days we are not happy unless we can find someone to blame for a minor misfortune we suffer which in many instances is largely down to our own mistakes. Yet we still need someone to blame and more importantly to pay up. Yes youve probably guessed it now. I work for an insurance company and guess what! many insurers are now looking to pull out of providing EL insurance due to the level of claim activity. Yes i know that we must shoulder some of the blame for this culture by not going to court and fighting more of the more dubious cases.But after all when you take extortionate legal fees into account its a lot cheaper to buy it off isn't it.(Im being sarcastic now) Ultimately if insurers stop writing EL coverage and lets remember employers are legally obliged to provide the cover what will happen then? I suppose the Government will step in and massively increase taxes or ask employers to contribute to a special insurance pool to cover compensation costs. I think some of us will be in for a very large shock if this happens as companies could be paying more than 10 times what they presently pay for EL cover. Perhaps I could claim that these people are in fact giving me depression and did they adequately assess (in writing)the effect their actions would have on my well being? Hey Ive just thought of something perhaps I could ask one of them nice guys who hang around my supermaket about my chance of getting some compensation.........on second thoughts.............
Admin  
#2 Posted : 31 July 2002 21:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Craythorne Karl, I appreciate what you say. I had 2 of these parasites pounce on me in Devon last year while on my October vacation. I told them what I thought of them and their organisation. With regard to the increase in EL premiums and the possibility of insurers pulling out of the market, it is not as far fetched as some may think. I had some very high powered meetings last week with our corporate people from the States and Europe plus our insurance broker to discuss the spiralling costs of EL premiums. Last year we had a 40% increase in premium and this year it is anticipated that it will go up by as much as 179% which equates to about a £1m increase to our UK operations. Their answers - employ a workers compensation officer like they do in the States to manage the claims better and tell our exisitng insurers to get stuffed and we'll look elsewhere!!!! To put an environmental slant to it - 'End of Pipe Abatement' When I suggested increasing the number of H&S Officers in the UK from the current 3 across 8 sites in order to manage H&S better and prevent the claims the response was not so positive. Personally I hope they get stung big time on the premium and then perhaps they will start to grasp what I have been telling them for nearly 2 years. Regards, Paul
Admin  
#3 Posted : 01 August 2002 10:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Scott Whilst I agree with all said so far, as a Health and Safety Manager I would love to see more posts available for us to fill however, I do not think that it is our job to 'manage' health and safety as suggested by Paul. This is very much ALL managers, supervisors and individuals jobs to do! It is our job to advise, coax and train those people in the right ways of doing things and being the middleman between the Corporate Body and the Employee. Not the best of positions to be in really. The problem lies very much with the way that peoples attitudes have changed. Not long ago everyone knew what their 'responsibilities' were but today they only know their 'rights'. This is also the fault of Government in relaxing the advertising standards such that solicitors can now openly advertise and tout for business. I must also agree that insurers have played a major role in advising that an employer 'should pay up as it won't effect your premium too much!'. This spreads around the factory floor and before we know it you have the 'claim culture'. I must say also that as a H&S manager, if the Company 'cocked it up', I will support any individual, but there must also be the return for this in that individuals must follow the rules and law. Only recently I had to interview a claimnant from the factory floor and she stated that 'as a member of the Union she may as well put a claim in as the Company doesn't pay it, the Insurance Company does!'. Also, what sort of message does it send out when people eat nothing but fast food and get fat or spill hot coffee on them then make calims against the supplier!! This is rules gone mad! I remember and old adage that 'Rules and Laws are there for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of idiots' Whatever has happened to all the wise men!!!!
Admin  
#4 Posted : 01 August 2002 10:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker I note with some satisfaction that Claims Direct have gone bust. The real down side of these claims, and lets not forget it is the courts that award them, is that we constantly hear about things being banned by the "Health And Safety People” when in reality it is the organisation’s legal people. The outcome is the public’s perception of H&S being populated by jobsworthies Where liability claims are concerned I agree with Paul, the insurance companies are reaping just rewards. The company that covers us (all risks) visits every year to “audit” and not once in ten years has anyone spoken to me. I have sole responsibility for all aspects of H&S and like most in my position an ongoing problem getting H&S taken seriously. Like bank loans the insurance industry are there with an umbrella when it is sunny, but snatch it away at the first sign of rain.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 01 August 2002 14:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Craythorne David, If you read my posting properly you would see that I called for an increase in H&S personnel to manage H&S better. I was not in anyway suggesting that it is the sole responsibility of H&S professionals to manage H&S. Give me some credit, I have been doing this bloody job for 13 years!!!!! Paul
Admin  
#6 Posted : 01 August 2002 15:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith You may joke about the rising cost of employer liability insurance, however judging by recent press articles in Construction News and the BBC Radio 4 Today program, this issue is likely to have a serious impact on employment. I understand from the Today program that coalmining in Wales is coming to an end because of this very issue. It was stated that the official reason of the increase premiums is because of the anticipated claims over the next 20 – 30 years in occupational ill health. Within certain industries such as construction, employer liability insurance may become a very scarce commodity which will attract a high premium and were there will be much tighter control. Many contributors to this forum have complained about the low level of fines imposed by Magistrates for breaches of Health and Safety Law; however £500 fine could now result in the closure of a business simply because they are unable to renew their employer liability insurance.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 01 August 2002 16:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Graham Bullough Here are several thoughts, for what they are worth, on the issues raised by Karl and other responders so far. Firstly it seems that much of the UK compensation culture has been an undesirable import from the USA where nobody seems to have any responsibility for their own safety and can even successfully claim compensation for self inflicted misfortune. One example I read about recently concerned a man who bought a large motor home. On his first drive along a motorway he set the cruise control at 70mph, got out of the driver's seat and went in the back to make a cup of coffee. Subsequently the vehicle veered off the motorway and crashed. He successfully sued the makers because the handbook did not advise drivers not to leave the driver's seat while the vehicle was moving! He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new vehicle. The makers changed their handbook after the court case just in case any other complete morons bought their vehicles! Secondly, most people in the UK don't understand insurance. A cynical view I've heard more than once is that insurance companies actually never pay for anything. What they really do is recycle the money they receive in the form of hefty premiums. Also employers nowadays are generally subject to significant excesses (e.g. £100,000) for each and every claim under Employer's Liability and Public Liability insurance. Thus, employers have to self-insure for most claims and the insurance companies only pay wholly for successful claims which exceed the excess amount. However, this aspect is rarely known or publicised so no wonder that most people think that "everything will be paid for by insurance". Another aspect of the "compo" culture in the UK is that people are led by the media and the ambulance chasers to believe that they will automatically get money by claiming after any misfortune. The reality is that only a proportion of all claims made actually succeed, (mostly) in cases where the misfortune involved can be proved to have stemmed from negligence by the company, organisation or person being sued. I've inserted the word "mostly" because of a suspicion that some claims are settled with a payout because it is significantly cheaper than proceeding to a court case even in cases where defending against the claim is very likely to be successful. The cost of dealing with claims, including frivolous and unsuccessful ones, can be considerable for employers. However, for most employers I bet that such costs are rarely made known or considered. The final aspect of this response is the issue of why insurers don't do more to persuade/coerce employers to improve their health and safety performance and thus take positive steps to prevent or reduce the numbers and severity of accidents and ill-health and consequent claims. Perhaps part of the answer lies in the high premiums and excesses imposed by insurers. As long as insurers can continue to pay out when required without denting the anticipated profits from the premiums they collect, they probably have little incentive to do more. If a major disaster or ill-health trend occurs to rock this scenario the insurers moan like hell and simply push up the premiums again. How many insurers talk to the top people running companies and other employing organisations and offer them clear incentives such as reductions in premiums in return for positive improvements in health and safety? If this could be done, surely it would help to influence the top people to give better support to those of us in health and safety in our role of advising, coaxing and training managers, supervisors and employees about their respective responsibilities for managing health and safety!
Admin  
#8 Posted : 01 August 2002 17:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi The best people to give information on the reasons for the increase is the insurance industry--I contacted the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and they sent me a paper on "Commercial Insurance Premium" in the context of Rate Rises. The conclusions of this paper are:- Conclusions 1)General insurance rates are increasing to commercial companies. This increase reflects a number of factors, each of which would have the effect of generating some rate increase, but which, operating together, produce substantial rate rises for some companies for some types of insurance. 2)Some of the factors are international and affect general insurance premium rates around the world. 3)The WTC disaster is responsible for a substantial reduction in capacity, reassessment of risk and rise in demand. These together mean higher premiums. 4)At the same time, the industry was suffering from persistent underwriting loss. Premiums would anyway have risen to restore the industry’s finances. 5)A number of factors are unique to the UK, however. Many stem directly from recent legislative changes.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 01 August 2002 17:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch To reinforce Arran's point an extract (slightly edited to remove some comment on requirements which should be obvious to most of those on this forum) from Masons solicitors excellent Health & Safety Bulletin (4 July 2002) which you can register for on line at www.masons.com "Two weeks ago a small South-West contracting firm was forced into liquidation after its insurance broker was unable to obtain liability insurance from the insurance market. Today we are informed that a Scottish contracting company is also being forced to close because it cannot renew its insurance. Masons has today been told that over 100 construction companies in the UK are now “seriously at risk” of having to close their doors due to lack of liability cover. In recent years there has been a marked reduction in the availability of liability insurance in the UK, with insurers pulling out of the market and the collapse of providers such as Independent Insurance Company. These events come on top of large settlements for asbestos, vibration and occupational deafness and record payouts for injury victims (This week saw an out of court settlement to a worker injured on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link of £1.4 million). The message coming from the insurance industry seems to be clear: companies with a poor health and safety record are going to find it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain liability cover in the future...... ....To obtain liability cover in future, insurers will require evidence of a good claims history and adequate management of risks. Only companies who have the systems outlined above in place will be in a position to provide the required evidence and obtain insurance cover. The unavailability or high cost is likely to tempt contractors into illegally operating without liability insurance. From April 2002, the Health and Safety Executive have taken over the role of ensuring that the principal contractor displays valid liability insurance certificates for every contractor working on site. It is essential therefore, that principal contractors check and regularly re-check the validity of their sub-contractors’ liability insurance." As an aside one of Masons key H&S team is an active MIOSH. Peter
Admin  
#10 Posted : 01 August 2002 18:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Karl Curtis Just thought I'd say a big thank you to the great responses on this subject. Ultimately it is heartening to know that there are some very hard working and dedicated health and safety professionals out there who are striving to ensure that we are all safe at our places of work. Whilst I have no problems with people who are injured at work receiving appropriate compensation (and lets remember that a lot of inncocent people have died over the last 100 yrs to get these rights)I just feel this should be viewed as some sort of help following legitimate injury and not just a nice little earner. As an insurance risk surveyor with a special interest in occupational safety and health I hope that in some small way I can make a positive contribution to reducing injuries at work and at the same time improving the balance sheet of my employer. So remember the next time the insurance guy with his plastic backed clipboard and £50 polyster mix suit is asking you lots of questions about health surveillance, lung function tests, audiometric tests etc etc etc please treat him kindly....... it could be me.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 02 August 2002 09:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Lucas One aspect of the issue I experienced with my previous company - major global American owned corporation - was that they began to notice this claims culture problem about 8 years ago and found it getting out of control and therefore affecting premiums. What became apparent in communications from "across the pond" over the following 6 to 12 months was the sudden high levels of disciplinary action, sometimes very severe, being invoked against employees after an accident/incident. 8 years on, the result is a major reduction in accidents, indeed one US unit has gone 7 years without an LTA mmmmm!. No problems now with EL here, but having visited the unit sometime ago not surprisingly, low morale, mediocre production and high staff turnover was evident. What price safety? I sincerely hope that all us OS&H professionals will be aware of this situation occurring which I acccept is more likely to appear in major organisations. Hopefully we will all insist that our management continue to follow a true, just and fair approach to all. Ken
Admin  
#12 Posted : 02 August 2002 10:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By George Wedgwood What a fascinating debate! I must admit there seems to be a bit of energy building up in this area and you can't help but wonder, what is IOSH doing about the insurance issue? It is often mentioned in Committee and many IOSH Menmbers work for the industry, but do we need a stronger voice? Perhaps a 'Specialist Group' could be formed that would help bridge the gap in relations between the employer and safety pro? I am sure IOSH has a interest here and I would seek any other views on this as to what we could do to make to EL insurance issue more of a constructive debate, that could possibly help SMEs better in the future. After all, I think the industry that 'beneifts' from the poor H&S standards of employers and reap the high premiums, could spare a little more time to discuss the serious issue of improving the standards and giving real discounts for the measured improvement. I know many say they do this - but usually through expensive 'consultancy' arms, delivering fairly average levels of H&S service. Regards and keep up the debate - George
Admin  
#13 Posted : 03 August 2002 12:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Allan St.John Holt In the interests of the spread of information, some readers may not be aware of the excellent news Website that gives links to virtually all English-language news media, and offers some good headlines. Often these are on safety topics and 'compo'. Have a look at www.drudgereport.com - just now I found this link to the story of a man sueing an airline because he found himself sitting next to a person of, er, over-large build. http://www.nbcsandiego.c...856320020801-110813.html will get you straight to the story. Good thread this - politics demand no comments from me at this juncture! Allan
Admin  
#14 Posted : 03 August 2002 16:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nigel Lusby I was sent this in an e-mail, hopefully (if these are accurate) its not pointing in the direction we are all going (?). The "Stella" awards rank up there with the Darwin awards. Stella Liebeck is the 81 year old lady who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonalds. This case inspired an annual award - The "Stella" Award - for the most frivolous lawsuits in the U. S. The following are this year's candidates: 1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little brat was Ms. Robertson's son. 2. June 1998: A 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbour ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car, when he was trying to steal his neighbour's hubcaps. 3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener as malfunctioning. He couldn't reenter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation. Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars. 4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbour's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced-in yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun. 5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms.Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. 6. December 1997: Kara Alton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighbouring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses. And the winner is... Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City. In November 2000 Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr.Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him the handbook that he couldn't actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago. Winnebago actually changed their handbooks on the back of their court case, just in case there are any other complete morons buying their vehicles.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 04 August 2002 22:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ashley Williams Well Im not sure if IOSH will let this on the site. Its a true story of an WRULD claim, but is a little dodgy due to the reasons, but here goes: - Phone Sex Operator Wins Suit Fort Lauderdale, FL -- A Florida phone sex operator has won a worker's compensation settlement claiming that she was injured after regularly pleasuring herself at work. During the course of her claim for workers'compensation benefits, the 40-year-old employee of Fort Lauderdale's CFP Enterprises Inc. said she developed carpal tunnel syndrome - also known as repetitive motion injury - in both hands from pleasuring herself as many as seven times a day while speaking with callers. The woman used one hand to answer the telephone and the other to note customers' names and fetishes and to give herself an orgasm during the verbal exchanges. In her petition for workers' compensation benefits, filed with Florida's Department of Labor and Employment Security, the woman claimed that she received her injury from "repetitive use of the phone." She claimed weekly benefits of $267 a week and also asked to be reimbursed for $30,000 in medical bills after a neurosurgeon operated on her hands to relieve her pain. Talk about rolling up your sleeves and getting into one's work.
Admin  
#16 Posted : 05 August 2002 11:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Coming back to the UK, I am waiting for the rush of claims with abrasive wheels to start again. PUWER 98 REG 11 maintains the FA '61 definitions and fails to recognise that it was the Abrasive Wheel regs 1970 that ultimately made it legal to use an abrasive wheel with any part of the wheel exposed. It is now illegal again to allow any dangerous part to be exposed, practicability has no link to the machine being used. If US thinking takes off one can foresee a rush of claims for any trivial occurrence as the standard of dangerous is moved - witness the thread on trapped fingers in schools. Don't be taken in by defences of due diligence these are as flexible to re-interpret as reasonably practicable has been with the standard being moved ever upward. Bob
Admin  
#17 Posted : 12 August 2002 14:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brian Dawson But Bob, it does permit "the provision of information, instruction, training and supervision" when other physical measures are "not practicable".
Admin  
#18 Posted : 13 August 2002 08:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis But it is totally practicable to fully enclose an abrasive wheel - Not for use however-Note that the Lords have decided already that lack of ability to use for work does not remove the need to enclose fully. My point is that practicable duties place extremely high standards on employers and are a potential rich seam for claims. EC directives are framed in these practicable terms and I think we are going to find difficulties unless the government makes some regulatory amendment to the interpretation to negate the Lords decision.
Admin  
#19 Posted : 13 August 2002 17:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi It is not only PUWER 98, but also PUWER 92 that has the same Regulation 11 in the context of Dangerous parts of machinery and hierarchy of control measures for protection. It was PUWER 92 that revoked all but regulation 9 (Training) and the schedule of The Abrasive Wheels Regulations 1970, which were finally revoked by PUWER 98! Obviously PUWER 92 had transitional arrangements etc. Regulation 11 of PUWER in essence has a hierarchy of control measures for protectiom from dangerous parts of machinery that I cannot find in any significant conflict with the requirements of the now revoked Abrasive Wheels Regulations.
Admin  
#20 Posted : 14 August 2002 08:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Jay I used '98 for convenience and recognise the repetition of the '92. Reg 11.2(a) means exactly what it says - If it is practicable to fully guard the wheel it must be done even if the wheel is not usable. The subsequent measures can only be followed if it is impracticable ie. not physically possible, to guard fully. The Abrasive Wheel regs used to permit the exposure of the wheel to the extent required to permit the work - hence all the detail concerning overhanging, tapered and other wheel types. In theory reg. 5 of the abrasive wheel regs would have provided an avenue for resolving the issue but his is now closed. Our barrack room lawyers are always ready to spot an opening and I fear that there will be more and more oppportunities in the future due to a fundamental mismatch in the legal philosophies underlying UK and EC legislation. As a construction company we find that it is progressively more difficult to retain fault with the operative even where they are operating totally outside of site rules and have been significantly trained. The recent successful HSE prosecution of a foreman, 4 operatives and a driver may stem the tide, the 5 persons were hanging on to the rear of a rubber tyred excavator as additional counterweight on the public highway. But I suspect that had one fallen and been injured a claim would have resulted. Bob
Admin  
#21 Posted : 21 August 2002 14:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Lucas Apologies raising this again but some news out today on the BBC website - not good especially for SME's. Obviously this is not unexpected but maybe worth a read if only for information purposes. Available on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2206862.stm Ken
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.