Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
I am aware that insurance companies are insisting that clients have suitable and sufficient health, safety and fire documentation and procedures. If they do not, then the client is given between 30 - 90 days to comply, normally 90 days. This then prompts the client to ensure that they provide this information otherwise presumably their insurance will be invalid.
Insurance companies are often vilified for their over zealousness. Given the previous paragraph, it would appear that they are doing a splendid job. I wonder if the regulators should actively encourage this practice as it seems to be more effective than regulatory site visits, which are limited by the resources of the regulators.
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian-Edwards
Hi Raymond
Insurers are generally pretty poor at carrying-out Health & Safety surveys. It's often luck of the draw with some insurers being more focussed than others. Commonly, regular H&S surveys will be reserved for larger businesses or those with problem claims experiences.
The surveys are often "fleeting" and are over and done with in a couple of hours, when realistically, a few days would probably be more appropriate to cover all aspects.
Finally, these surveys can often be biased towards claims defensibility, rather than general accident reduction. In the cold light of day, insurers are likely to have a very different (almost adversarial) agenda to the HSE. As successful HSE prosecutions usually spell the death knell for a successful claim defence.
Good idea in theory, though...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Ian
Thanks for your response and some good points offered. I should have included in my original thread that the cases I referred to are SMEs, small businesses actually. Non-compliance such as no h&s policy, RAs, FRAs, no procedures for staff training, manual handling, PUWER etc. All pretty basic stuff in most workplace environments.
I agree inspections and audits may not be that good but even an insurance chappie can identify whether FRAs are in place, even if he is not in a position to comment on the adequacy of them. It never ceases to amaze me how many SMEs are flouting h&s laws. Some of these work in hazardous industries!
Fortunately I have a friend who is an insurance chap and has passed my details to his Clients, so business is looking up. Roll on the next insurance audit!
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Glyn Atkinson
In ten years of insurers involvement with renewals or audits of premises, I have only ever dealt with qualified investigators or auditors.
The insurers are very careful usually with the potential payouts to gain profit from premiums !
They usually have eyes in the back of their heads as well - damned clever breed !
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Grace
Raymond,
Just back from hols hence late response.... What one has to bear in mind is that insurers face same problems as HSE... we just are unable to visit more than a few of the employers that we insure. It is not financially justified to visit a policyholder who might be paying a a few thousand pounds (at most)premium.
Where insurers maintain a survey force - and not all do - that scarce resource has to be used where it will have most impact, for visiting larger risks.
The insurance industry has often been regarded as having the leverage to encourage (force?) employers to practice good risk management. The industry has had to persuade many - inc the HSE - that we do not have that power.
Regards
Phil
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuff4blokes
Just to add to Phil's comments, Employer's Liability insurance is regulated by law and whilst some of the more proactive insurers will carry out "surveys" and offer advice on H&S issues and claims defensibility, in reality the only sanctions available to the underwriter against "poor employers" are mid-term cancellation (extremely rare), refusal to offer renewal or increased terms at renewal. Public liability insurance is less regulated and therefore conditions etc can be applied requiring improved risk control.
Insurers have no enforcement powers but the better ones certainly encourage, recognise and reward good risk management. However, they are commercial organisations, with shareholders who expect them to produce profits and the effort they expend on "survey activity" is a matter for the business stream managers.
As a consultant who earns a proportion of my fees from the outsourcing of that work, I'd love to see much more! Whenever I have met other consultants who do similar work I have found them to be professional and committed individuals, well qualified and experienced, able to differentiate between trivial and significant risk and with a good understanding of business pressures.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuff4blokes
P.S. This morning I had coffee with someone with enforcement powers who believed that the commercial pressure of insurers was more effective than their own powers at effecting change.
Maybe they are correct. I don't know!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Many insurance companies simply send out questionnaires for the customer to complete. I have seen some examples and they range from simple to quite exacting.
It is clear that brokers often do not have a proper understanding of the legal requirements as evidenced by their comments following receipt of the questionnaire. However, it does nonetheless force companies to provide statutory requirements and evidence it to the insurer.
|
|
|
|
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.