FREE copy of the Uptime Elements Implementation Guide once you subscribe to Reliability Weekly

A question that is often asked by companies is why they should bother to implement the recommendations put forward in the insurance report. Another way of putting this is, “How much will my premium reduce if I do this work?” Both of these are excellent questions.

The traditional view of making engineering decisions is based on cost/benefit analysis. If a certain recommendation will cost $1M to implement, how long will it take for the company to recoup that in terms of lower insurance premiums?

First, the insurance risk engineer is the wrong person to ask. They have no input into the pricing of insurance. Underwriters determine the pricing, all risk engineers do is describe the risk profile of the facility, and advise on the probability of losses.

Second, as stated previously, it is not really a matter of how much will be saved on a premium by implementing certain recommendations, but it is a question of whether an insurer wants to be involved in a risk to start with. Market conditions play a big part in this decision, and in a hard market, those companies with the best risk profiles will be assured of being covered. Those with the poorest risk ratings may well be left to fend for themselves.

I have often been involved in discussions regarding the likelihood of a certain risk occurring. Sometimes, site staff are absolutely convinced that a risk is so low as to be unworthy of consideration, and are righteously indignant that a recommendation based on that risk has been put forward. In good faith, they assert that such a thing would never happen. Unfortunately, it is the role of an insurance company to cover the risks that are unlikely. If they were likely, then the site would have already done something about reducing the risk. In the worst cases, where we can’t agree that the risk has a real probability of occurring, I offer to remove insurance liability for all losses associated with that particular risk scenario. Effectively, this means to include a clause in the insurance documentation that all losses from that source will be born by the client, and not the insurance company. If the site demands that the risk can never happen, they shouldn’t mind it not being covered by the insurance, right? Why pay for it if it will never happen? To date, the offer to remove cover for the specific risk in question has never been accepted at any site in my experience.

Tip from Engineering Asset Management: An Insurance Perspective by Ian Barnard

Upcoming Events

August 8 - August 10, 2023

Maximo World 2023

View all Events
banner
80% of Reliabilityweb.com newsletter subscribers report finding something used to improve their jobs on a regular basis.
Subscribers get exclusive content. Just released...MRO Best Practices Special Report - a $399 value!
DOWNLOAD NOW
Defect Elimination in the context of Uptime Elements

Defect Elimination means a lot of things to a lot of people. Uptime Elements offers a specific context for defect elimination [DE] as a success factor on the reliability journey [RJ].

Internet of Things Vendors Disrupting the Asset Condition Management Domain at IMC-2022

Internet of Things Vendors Disrupting the Asset Condition Management Domain at IMC-2022 The 36th International Maintenance Conference collocated with the RELIABILITY 4.0 Digital Transformation Conference [East]

Asset Management Technology

The aim of the Asset Management technology domain is to assure that IT/OT systems are focused on creating the value from the assets and that the business can deliver to achieve organizational objectives as informed by risk.

TRIRIGAWORLD AWARDS at MaximoWorld 2022

TRIRIGAWORLD AWARDS honors excellence in space optimization and facility management, A Reliabilityweb.com event to further advance asset management

IMC-2022 Who's Who: The World's Best Run Companies

The International Maintenance Conference (IMC) provides a fresh, positive community-based curated experience to gain knowledge and a positive perspective for advancing reliability and asset management through people, their managers, the strategy, the processes, the data and the technology. The world’s best-run companies are connecting the workforce, management, assets and data to automate asset knowledge that can be leveraged for huge beneficial decisions.

Uptime Elements Root Cause Analysis

Root Cause Analysis is a problem solving method. Professionals who are competent in Root Cause Analysis for problem solving are in high demand.

Reliability Risk Meter

The asset is not concerned with the management decision. The asset responds to physics

Why Reliability Leadership?

If you do not manage reliability culture, it manages you, and you may not even be aware of the extent to which this is happening!

Asset Condition Management versus Asset Health Index

Confusion abounds in language. Have you thought through the constraints of using the language of Asset Health?

Seven Chakras of Asset Management by Terrence O'Hanlon

The seven major asset management chakras run cross-functionally from the specification and design of assets through the asset lifecycle to the decommissioning and disposal of the asset connected through technology