Email
Newsletters
R&I ONE®
(weekly)
The best articles from around the web and R&I, handpicked by R&I editors.
WORKERSCOMP FORUM
(weekly)
Workers' Comp news and insights as well as columns and features from R&I.
RISK SCENARIOS
(monthly)
Update on new scenarios as well as upcoming Risk Scenarios Live! events.

Risk Insider: Zachary Gifford

13 Rules for Risk Management Success

By: | October 21, 2014 • 2 min read
Zachary Gifford is the Associate Director of Systemwide Risk Management, The California State University. He received a 2014 Risk All Star Award from Risk & Insurance®. He can be reached at zgifford@calstate.edu.

Over my 24-plus years in the insurance, general liability claims and risk management professions, I have learned that the following practices or attributes are critical for success.

With this opportunity, I would like to share with the  readers of Risk & Insurance® the practices and attributes that lead to success when working in a high energy, heavy work-volume environment in our respective organizations.

“Risk management is about people, not money. Money is why we have risk managers; however people are why we strive for excellence. One needs to be cognizant of the uninsurable costs of risk.”

The modern conventional wisdom is that folks need to “do more with less”. Let’s face it, our organizations are either beholden to stockholders, owners or the tax paying citizens of our great country. More than ever the pressures for producing high quality, high volume and cost-effective work product is expected.

The following are some proverbial words-of-wisdom from someone who is the boots on the ground….

  • Be the “get to yes” folks and not the “little dark rain cloud”. Risk management is in the position to assist stakeholders in making informed and sound decisions. Rarely should risk management provide an absolute “no” and if so, then the successful risk manager assists in providing alternative methods to assist in reaching the goal in question. In other words, provide the organization’s stake-holders information enough for them to make an informed decision.
  • Check your ego at the door when you enter the office. It is not about “you”, it is about “us” and “them”.
  • Risk management is about people, not money. Money is why we have risk managers; however people are why we strive for excellence. One needs to be cognizant of the uninsurable costs of risk.
  • Having a positive mental attitude is critical.
  • What would Woodrow Wilson Do? Woodrow Wilson said essentially; “In times of crises a thousand hasty counsels is worth one cool judgment. The goal is to provide light and not heat.”
  • Change is going to happen, embrace it.
  • Be forthright, honest, respectful of others and diplomatic.
  • Use your internal and external resources. Governmental entities do not have to worry about trade secrets or competition and generally public entity risk professionals like to share in their successes and “lessons learned.”
  • Do not reinvent the wheel. In all likelihood someone with institutional knowledge has “been there and done that.”
  • Communicate with stakeholders. They do not like surprises and do not wait to be asked to provide a report or information. Let stakeholders know of your successes and simultaneously help identify where organization success can be maximized or where failure can be mitigated.
  • Be timely and ready to address issues as they occur without losing focus of the horizon.
  • Communicate and collaborate with organizational personnel in developing and supporting a culture of risk management and safety.
  • Battleships turn slowly and sink fast…do not rest on your laurels.

Though the cynic may conclude much of the above is cliché’, it has been my experience that incorporating the above points into how one conducts their risk management endeavors benefits the organization, fosters a positive work environment and provides the foundation for building and/or maintaining a quality risk management enterprise.

Share this article:

Risk Insider: Jeff Driver

Joan Rivers: One More Legacy

By: | October 16, 2014 • 2 min read
Jeff Driver is the Chief Risk Officer- Stanford University Medical Center and the Chief Executive Officer - The Risk Authority, LLC. He can be reached at jdriver@theriskauthority.com.

This is the second of a two-part Risk Insider post on the death of Joan Rivers.

Over a month has passed since the death of Joan Rivers. Still, a full public explanation of the circumstances and cause of her demise has not surfaced.

Due to federal and state privacy laws, those details may never be revealed, just as we are not privy to most personal medical outcomes. Nor should we be from a medical privacy perspective.

Even when court cases are litigated or settled, most often the public is not informed of the result, or if it is, national attention soon shifts to other pressing issues of the day, and focus is lost in the blink-of-an-eye news cycle of our times.

Indeed, the traditional and social media rush to judgment did not wait long as a forensic evaluation proved inconclusive, and public health and safety regulatory reviews crawled along.

Within hours following the initial event, allegations of medical error, unprofessional physician conduct (search for “selfie” with Rivers under anesthesia), unauthorized physician medical practice at the clinic, faulty clinic administration, and medical treatment exceeding the patient’s consent began swirling over the airwaves and Internet.

Reactions such as these are dangerous as they unduly undermine and erode public confidence in a world-class medical system, and contribute to the defensive practice of medicine that significantly runs up the costs of health care for everyone.

Even before many facts were verified or discovered, accusations were commingled in confusion with words and phrases begging, “What ‘killed’ Joan Rivers?”

Worse, the media launched personal attacks and vilified some of the medical professionals involved. In social media’s diversity of public commentary, some even threatened some of the medical professionals involved.

Reactions such as these are dangerous as they unduly undermine and erode public confidence in a world-class medical system, and contribute to the defensive practice of medicine that significantly runs up the costs of health care for everyone.

The risk management and medical communities must do everything we can to counteract the perception that unexpected medical outcomes automatically equate to medical errors or the unsafe practice of medicine.

We must combat the human impulse to shame and blame that is now coupled with a modern trend of rush to judgment in a flash-mob, instantaneous, anything-goes traditional and social media culture.

Simultaneously, however, we must also acknowledge and speak publicly and individually of our innate human imperfections, even those of our medical professionals, and learn from medical errors when they do occur so that they can be prevented in the future as we strive to ensure that no patient ever suffers or dies from a medical error.

Perhaps a completely unexpected and ironic legacy of Rivers’ vivacious and notable life is that her case moves us all to engage in honest, healthy, thoughtful public discourse regarding the practice of medicine in the aftermath of an unexpected outcome, whether due to medical error or not.

Rivers’ signature one-liner will speak to me throughout the remainder of my life’s career, and hopefully to the risk management and medical communities, in a way it never has before: “Can we talk?” Yes, we must. Yes, we will, Joan Rivers!

Read the first of Jeff Driver’s posts, Joan Rivers: Can We Talk?

Share this article:

Sponsored: Liberty International Underwriters

A Renaissance In U.S. Energy

Resurgence in the U.S. energy industry comes with unexpected risks and calls for a new approach.
By: | October 15, 2014 • 5 min read

SponsoredContent_LIU
America’s energy resurgence is one of the biggest economic game-changers in modern global history. Current technologies are extracting more oil and gas from shale, oil sands and beneath the ocean floor.

Domestic manufacturers once clamoring for more affordable fuels now have them. Breaking from its past role as a hungry energy importer, the U.S. is moving toward potentially becoming a major energy exporter.

“As the surge in domestic energy production becomes a game-changer, it’s time to change the game when it comes to both midstream and downstream energy risk management and risk transfer,” said Rob Rokicki, a New York-based senior vice president with Liberty International Underwriters (LIU) with 25 years of experience underwriting energy property risks around the globe.

Given the domino effect, whereby critical issues impact each other, today’s businesses and insurers can no longer look at challenges in isolation one issue at a time. A holistic, collaborative and integrated approach to minimizing risk and improving outcomes is called for instead.

Aging Infrastructure, Aging Personnel

SponsoredContent_LIU

Robert Rokicki, Senior Vice President, Liberty International Underwriters

The irony of the domestic energy surge is that just as the industry is poised to capitalize on the bonanza, its infrastructure is in serious need of improvement. Ten years ago, the domestic refining industry was declining, with much of the industry moving overseas. That decline was exacerbated by the Great Recession, meaning even less investment went into the domestic energy infrastructure, which is now facing a sudden upsurge in the volume of gas and oil it’s being called on to handle and process.

“We are in a renaissance for energy’s midstream and downstream business leading us to a critical point that no one predicted,” Rokicki said. “Plants that were once stranded assets have become diamonds based on their location. Plus, there was not a lot of new talent coming into the industry during that fallow period.”

In fact, according to a 2014 Manpower Inc. study, an aging workforce along with a lack of new talent and skills coming in is one of the largest threats facing the energy sector today. Other estimates show that during the next decade, approximately 50 percent of those working in the energy industry will be retiring. “So risk managers can now add concerns about an aging workforce to concerns about the aging infrastructure,” he said.

Increasing Frequency of Severity

SponsoredContent_LIUCurrent financial factors have also contributed to a marked increase in frequency of severity losses in both the midstream and downstream energy sector. The costs associated with upgrades, debottlenecking and replacement of equipment, have increased significantly,” Rokicki said. For example, a small loss 10 years ago in the $1 million to $5 million ranges, is now increasing rapidly and could readily develop into a $20 million to $30 million loss.

Man-made disasters, such as fires and explosions that are linked to aging infrastructure and the decrease in experienced staff due to the aging workforce, play a big part. The location of energy midstream and downstream facilities has added to the underwriting risk.

“When you look at energy plants, they tend to be located around rivers, near ports, or near a harbor. These assets are susceptible to flood and storm surge exposure from a natural catastrophe standpoint. We are seeing greater concentrations of assets located in areas that are highly exposed to natural catastrophe perils,” Rokicki explained.

“A hurricane thirty years ago would affect fewer installations then a storm does today. This increases aggregation and the magnitude for potential loss.”

Buyer Beware

On its own, the domestic energy bonanza presents complex risk management challenges.

However, gradual changes to insurance coverage for both midstream and downstream energy have complicated the situation further. Broadening coverage over the decades by downstream energy carriers has led to greater uncertainty in adjusting claims.

A combination of the downturn in domestic energy production, the recession and soft insurance market cycles meant greatly increased competition from carriers and resulted in the writing of untested policy language.

SponsoredContent_LIU

In effect, the industry went from an environment of tested policy language and structure to vague and ambiguous policy language.

Keep in mind that no one carrier has the capacity to underwrite a $3 billion oil refinery. Each insurance program has many carriers that subscribe and share the risk, with each carrier potentially participating on differential terms.

“Achieving clarity in the policy language is getting very complicated and potentially detrimental,” Rokicki said.

Back to Basics

SponsoredContent_LIUHas the time come for a reset?

Rokicki proposes getting back to basics with both midstream and downstream energy risk management and risk transfer.

He recommends that the insured, the broker, and the carrier’s underwriter, engineer and claims executive sit down and make sure they are all on the same page about coverage terms and conditions.

It’s something the industry used to do and got away from, but needs to get back to.

“Having a claims person involved with policy wording before a loss is of the utmost importance,” Rokicki said, “because that claims executive can best explain to the insured what they can expect from policy coverage prior to any loss, eliminating the frustration of interpreting today’s policy wording.”

As well, having an engineer and underwriter working on the team with dual accountability and responsibility can be invaluable, often leading to innovative coverage solutions for clients as a result of close collaboration.

According to Rokicki, the best time to have this collaborative discussion is at the mid-point in a policy year. For a property policy that runs from July 1 through June 30, for example, the meeting should happen in December or January. If underwriters try to discuss policy-wording concerns during the renewal period on their own, the process tends to get overshadowed by the negotiations centered around premiums.

After a loss occurs is not the best time to find out everyone was thinking differently about the coverage,” he said.

Changes in both the energy and insurance markets require a new approach to minimizing risk. A more holistic, less siloed approach is called for in today’s climate. Carriers need to conduct more complex analysis across multiple measures and have in-depth conversations with brokers and insureds to create a better understanding and collectively develop the best solutions. LIU’s integrated business approach utilizing underwriters, engineers and claims executives provides a solid platform for realizing success in this new and ever-changing energy environment.

SponsoredContent

BrandStudioLogo

This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Liberty International Underwriters. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.


LIU is part of the Global Specialty Division of Liberty Mutual Insurance.
Share this article: