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 Management

The Profession

Q&A with Carolyn Snow, director of risk management for Humana and the 2014 RIMS President.
By: | March 3, 2014 • 3 min read
R3-14p46_Profession.indd

R3-14p46_Profession.inddIn 2014, Risk & Insurance® is dedicating its back page to Q&As with risk management professionals. Our second installment is with Carolyn Snow, director of risk management for Humana.

R&I: What was your first job?

Property underwriter.

R&I: How did you come to work in risk management?

My employer was consolidating offices.I did not want to relocate again and an opportunity became available at Humana.

R&I: Who is your mentor and why?

In my career, Jim Bloom, the just-retired CFO of Humana; and from RIMS, former presidents Janice Ochenkowski and Scott Clark; and my fellow board member, Nowell Seaman.

R&I: What about this work do you find the most fulfilling or rewarding?

Having an opportunity to work with people at every level of my company, to continue to grow and learn new things, and meeting all of the great people connected to the risk management profession.

R&I: What is the risk management community doing right?

[It’s] doing a better job of proving our value to the success of our companies, and that we do more than manage insurance programs and losses.

R&I: What could the risk management community be doing a better job of?

Continuing to do what we are doing right, but to a bigger and broader audience.

R&I: What emerging commercial risk most concerns you?

The more sophisticated cyber attacks.

R&I: What have you accomplished that you are proudest of?

Raised a great daughter.

R&I: What is your favorite book or movie?

Favorite movie: 84 Charing Cross Road, with Anne Bancroft and Anthony Hopkins. It’s an old movie but [has a] timeless message of friendship. The book that made the greatest impression on me was The Diary of Anne Frank, which I read when I was about her age.

R&I: What is the most unusual/interesting place you have ever visited?

I love to travel, so it is usually the last place I visited. In the U.S., I love the great parks in Utah; and outside the U.S., my favorite place is Scotland.

R&I: What is the riskiest activity you ever engaged in?

A helicopter ride in Hawaii, which was to go over volcanoes. Helicopters do not glide but fall straight down, and I would never do that again.

R&I: If the world has a modern hero, who is it and why? 

I admire Angela Merkel as a world leader, and Melinda and Bill Gates for their work on behalf of children.

R&I: What do your friends and family think you do?

My husband knows, but my friends just know I work at Humana, so they think, “It is something to do with insurance.” They are envious, however, since they know I love my job.

R&I: What was the best location and year for the RIMS conference and why?

San Diego is always a personal favorite of mine. Location, location, location — and our members seem to love it too as we always get a great response.

R&I: What’s the best restaurant you’ve ever eaten at?

Trattori Ponte Vecchio, Florence, Italy.

R&I: What is your favorite drink?

I am well known for always having a Tab  available at all times. Otherwise, a nice glass of wine, but not chardonnay. I hate chardonnay.

R&I: What’s been the biggest change in the risk management and insurance industry since you’ve been in it?

The evolution of ERM/SRM for risk management and the sophistication of underwriters and products from the insurance industry.

R&I: Are you optimistic about the U.S. economy or pessimistic and why?

Optimistic most days — as I think we have tremendous resources in brain power in this country — but frustrated at the political gridlock.

The R&I Editorial Team may be reached at riskletters@lrp.com.
Share this article:

Global Shipping

Full Speed Ahead

A dispute delaying Panama Canal construction was resolved, but further delays could be costly to shippers and exporters.
By: | March 25, 2014 • 3 min read
200247925-001

Any further delays to widen the Panama Canal could have far-reaching cost implications for all parties involved in the construction project and the shipping companies and exporters who use the Canal, a marine risk expert warned.

The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) signed a deal this month to end a four-month dispute — and a two-week work stoppage — over $1.6 billion in cost overruns claimed by the Grupo Unido por el Canal consortium (GUPC) carrying out the work. The dispute had threatened to derail the whole project, which now is expected to cost nearly $7 billion.

Advertisement




Under the terms of the agreement, the Authority and the Spanish-led construction consortium will each invest an extra $100 million in the project.

Zurich North America, which holds $400 million surety bond on the project, “worked diligently with the ACP and GUPC to reach an agreement on the matter and fortunately the two sides have had a successful negotiation,” said Michael Bond, head of surety, Zurich North America. “We congratulate both of them on effectively reaching a favorable outcome. Zurich was glad to have played a role in a solution that brought the project forward.”

When the Canal expansion is completed in December 2015, the new third lock will house 12 giant lock gates designed to allow larger cargo ships through, and double the shipping lane’s capacity.

But Douglas Sakamoto, class underwriter, marine, Liberty Specialty Markets, warned that any further interruptions could result in shipping delays, increased costs and lost shipping tolls.

“The forecast for work to be completed has changed from 2014 to 2015, which is still not a massive delay when compared to the dimension of the work and the expectation in terms of international trade turnaround,” Sakamoto said.

“However, a longer delay could impact several international trade industries since there are lots of related ongoing investments, such as work on several international ports to adapt them to the new vessels, and orders placed for the new-Panamax vessels.

“If the work can’t be completed for any reason and costs still continue increasing, there are a number of serious implications such as the termination of the agreement with the current consortium, and the bond policy may be required in order to provide the extra amount needed to complete the work.”

When done, the Panama Canal Authority is expected to double the $1 billion in revenue it currently receives from shipping tolls.

With more than 13,000 ships passing through the Canal every year, Sakamoto said, construction delays could mean restrictions in the amount of goods producers can export as well as increasing the time it takes to ship the goods.

He noted that producers of commodities, such as LNG, which are exported from the U.S. Gulf Coast to target markets like Asia and the west coast of Latin America could be affected.

In addition, grain producers in the Brazilian ports of Itaqui, Suape and Pecém would also lose out on shorter shipping times, he said.

Shipping companies that have invested heavily in new-Panamax vessels orders several years ago would similarly miss out on vital revenue, Sakamoto said.

Advertisement




International port authorities that have poured vast amounts of money into developing their ports for larger vessels and cargo volumes would also be adversely affected, Sakamoto said.

Pressure to meet the new deadline for completion of 2015, he said, could also impact labor force costs and suppliers.

“The Panama Canal construction project has been highly debated,” said a spokesman for Allianz Global Corporate Specialty, “but it’s actually not unusual for a large construction project to run over/get delayed. In fact, that’s why with project cargo coverage, there is a particular element called ‘delay in start up’ protection to help mitigate that risk.”

Work on the Canal project is now 70 percent complete; however the delay has come at a considerable cost to Sacyr, the Spanish building company that is leading the consortium, which saw its share price drop 6.9 percent this month following a breakdown in initial talks.

Alex Wright is a U.K.-based business journalist, who previously was deputy business editor at The Royal Gazette in Bermuda. You can reach him at riskletters@lrp.com.
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: