and adjusters and with contributors from across the industry we explore some fundamental procedural change where it is agreed it would be helpful to all.
Throughout, the objective has remained unaltered – to avoid similar claims giving rise to different outcomes depending on a particular interpretation of a policy wording. Clarity and contract certainty, where consistency in the claims response can be seen, is what we have tried to achieve.
While we have attempted to identify the issues that we believe would benefit from some level of change in as concise a manner as possible, we have tried to balance this with the need for a degree of discussion so that the need for clarity is clearly appreciated and justified.
We are aware of several wording changes, some of which were underway within insurance companies irrespective of this initiative, which have drawn from this work. We hope that this Report will assist consideration of further change.
This is not a finite undertaking. New circumstances and the changing face of the economy, both locally and globally, will demand an ongoing review process. New risks, which existing wordings may struggle to easily accommodate, will undoubtedly present themselves. This is something that has been clear over the last few years, and it is likely to continue. Even in the absence of significant new exposures, clarification is an ongoing process.
This Report does not claim to be exhaustive; it does, however, aim to deal with the most commonly encountered difficulties. There are many issues that remain problematic, for specifc market sectors for example.
In scoping this work, we have been mindful of the need to avoid being unduly prescriptive; we are not seeking to produce new wordings, but rather to identify issues benefiting from clarification, and have offered potential solutions as opposed to any specific recommendations. Contributors have been mindful of the need to avoid any anti-competiveness and we believe that this is a balanced and objective assessment of the issues we all face on a day-to-day basis.
We hope this is a useful and thought provoking document that will influence policy wordings in the future. Whether we have succeeded will be objectively tested by answering one question – will BI wordings change as a result of this (or the earlier initial) Report?
Damian Glynn
Harry Roberts
Contributors and Members of Study Group
Joint Chair
Harry Roberts (Cunningham Lindsey)
Damian Glynn (vrs Vericlaim)
Core Team
Mike Dean (Dialog Consulting)
Andrew King (Aon Risk Solutions)
Gerald Williams (Fitzgerald Consulting)
Contributors
David Henderson (FM Global)
Graham Herridge (Zurich)
Vivienne Hexter (Aon Ltd)
John Holland (Crawford & Company)
Diane Jenkins (Aon Ltd)
Flemming Jensen (Matson Driscoll Damico)
Heather Lees (Marsh)
Tony Levitt (RGL Forensics)
Heather Parkinson (Parkinson Consulting)
Geoff Piggot (Gen Re)
Richard Popple (Crawford & Company)
Harry Rule (Allianz)
Jonathan Samuelson (Harris Balcombe)
Victoria Sherratt (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert,
now with Reynolds Porter Chamberlain)
Martin Singleton (Aviva)
John Thompson (Hilton Thompson)
Tim Thompson (Crawford & Company)
Neil Warden
Sue Willmott (GAB Robins)
Other Contributors
David Abbott (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert)
Colin Alderson (Zurich)
John Bartlett (Allianz)
Peter Clark (Zurich)
Paul Jenkin (Groupama)
Steve Manville (Chartis)
William May
Ian Shelley (Aviva)
Steve Sodeau (Guy Carpenter)
Dr Tony Sowter
Malcolm Stewart
Phil Thorpe (NW Brown Insurance Brokers)
David Watkins (Allianz)
David Way (Lockton)
Editorial consultant: Roger Jordan
Designer: Barry Kemp
Contents
Contributors and Members of Study Group
1.2 Gross Profit – Uninsured Standing Charges Clause
1.3 Material Damage/Business Interruption Overlap
1.6 Declaration-Linked Policies – No Proportionate Reduction
1.7 Declaration-Linked Policies – Overall Impact
2.2 Wide Area Damage
2.3 Premises
2.4 Denial, Prevention and Hindrance of Access
2.5 Suppliers and Customers Extension
3.1 Increase in Cost of Working – Apportionment
3.2 Outsourcing and Blundell Spence