Biba findings point to broker advantages
Price is an important factor in every business decision. When it comes to insurance, it can be tempting to pursue the cheapest option. It is only when your insurance is put to the test, with a claim, that you realise its real value.
New research from the British Insurance Brokers Association (BIBA) has found that using a broker can help businesses achieve a fairer settlement when pursuing a claim. Results from a survey of 352 BIBA members show that nine out of ten brokers regularly negotiate an increase on claims offers made by insurers by up to 20 per cent.
Eric Galbraith, BIBA Chief Executive, commenting on the findings of this recent report, said:
"Insurers are tightening their belts during the recession, scrutinising claims and policy wordings. This demonstrates the vital support that brokers give clients during a claim.
"Many consumers do not have the experience or knowledge to negotiate claims payments themselves. Brokers have a professional relationship with the insurer. They can also evidence and support negotiations efficiently, using their advanced understanding of policy wording and relevant case law."
The benefit of using a broker is the experience they bring to the claims process. If your claim is rejected initially by the insurer, a broker's support can prove invaluable. Ninety-four per cent of brokers 'occasionally or often' overturn a rejected claim, according to the BIBA survey.
An upturn in the economy could mean frozen credit lines finally thawing, triggering sudden momentum in business opportunities and sales. However, it could also increase your exposure to risk, especially if you have made cut backs to run a leaner operation. Your business must be ready to capitalise on an economic upturn to gain an edge over your competitors.
Regular appraisal of your business requirements can help you be prepared. You can depend on insurance solutions, when they have been tailored to the needs of your business by a broker.
Breach of Duty?
Chances are, you're sick of hearing about Members of Parliament and their second homes, even the ones for ducks. The saga may have been relegated from the headlines to the news backbenches, but the public indignation remains. In the context of the worst global recession since the Second World War, the prospect of our democratically-elected representatives enjoying extravagant perks on the taxpayer was both frightening and commonly accepted as a major factor in the low turnout for June's English Council and European elections.
Does their behaviour not constitute a 'breach of duty'? With many employers and influential sections of the electorate facing an increasingly litigious environment in the UK, many among them will be wondering why similar misdemeanors in the halls of power seem to escape charge.
Conversely, as a director or officer in a private company, you could be personally sued by employees, shareholders, creditors, regulators, customers, competitors, the government, or even your own company, following claims of mismanagement, negligence, unfair dismissal, discrimination, libel/slander, anti-competitive behavior or breach of duty.
There is certainly evidence to suggest that UK employers are, increasingly, facing a litigious minefield.
The Tribunals Service annual report for 2008/2009 indicated that the number of employment tribunals they dealt with rose year-on-year from 548,541 in 2007-2008 to 568,153 in 2008-2009. Similarly, conciliation service ACAS reported the number of unfair dismissal cases referred to them increased by a fifth last year, after falling for two years. There have even been news reports of opportunist serial litigants making multiple employment applications, with the sole intention of alleging discrimination when their applications are unsuccessful, in the hope of extorting money when the case is settled out of court.
On 6 April 2009, the law on enforcement of the National Minimum Wage changed to help protect employees and prevent the undercutting of compliant employers by rogue competitors. That is all very well and good, but employers who fail to comply with the National Minimum Wage can now face an automatic fine, even if the offense was accidental. Persistent or serious offenders are potentially subject to an unlimited fine. A legal milestone was reached in June, with the preliminary hearing of the first prosecution brought under the Corporate Manslaughter Act. Peter Eaton from Geotechnical Holdings has been charged with the common law offence of manslaughter by gross negligence and his company faces an unlimited fine for a related health and safety charge. Before the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter Act, there was a reluctance to place personal liability and custodial sentences on employers. Events like the sinking of the P&O ferry and the Paddington rail disaster provoked calls for the omissions and actions of large companies to be answerable as corporate manslaughter offences.
In this instance, the charges were brought because, in 2007, a geologist from Geotechnical Holdings was killed when a pit in which he was working collapsed around him. Essentially, these developments show that, in order to successfully use the defence that you have ensured the health, safety and welfare of all your employees as far as reasonably practicable, it is now up to you to demonstrate how you adhered to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Under the Corporate Manslaughter Act, an organisation is guilty of corporate manslaughter if, "the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a death and amounts to a gross breach of duty of care to the person who died". There is predicted to be a steady rise in the number and complexity of these prosecutions, with more and more defendants set to be implicated.
If you are the director or an officer of a company, give us a call to find out how you can protect yourself against claims made against you or your business with Directors & Officers Libaility Insurance cover.
Contact us on 01442 232326 or email info@trshertfordshire.co.uk Energy Performance Certification – what does it mean?
Energy Performance Certificates
From January 2009 Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) became a legal requirement across the UK, following the implementation of the European Energy Performance Buildings Directive.
This requires the production of an EPC and advisory or recommendations report for all types of properties. The need for this is triggered: -
To help potential tenants, owners and occupiers consider energy efficiency in their investment, the certificate will contain:
Property owners need to identify a suitable qualified Energy Assessor who is a member of an approved Accreditation Body to undertake the assessment and provide a suitable EPC, which is valid for 10 years.
Occupiers of public buildings are also required to appoint a similarly qualified Assessor to provide a Display Energy Certificate annually.
Towergate Risk Solutions have teamed up with Personal Touch Energy Surveyors (PTES) to provide a professional and competitively priced energy certification service. For more information contact your normal account manager or the Towergate Risk Solutions office in Hemel Hempstead on 01442 232326.