1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
Jane Smiles, director of waste and recycling operator Alex Smiles,
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
bemoans soaring Insurance costs as £80,000 Is wiped off her bottom line from one year to the next...
• If you want to sound off about a road transport Issue write to features editor Patric Cunnane or fax your views (up to 600 words) to Micky Clarke on 020 8652 8912.
dd It was a Friday morning and the insurance man came
to call. The subject for discussion and resolution for our transport and waste recycling and transfer operations was Public and Employees Liability Insurance.
I then had to listen to the incredible efforts made on our behalf to gain cover at all.
Slowly, it dawned on me that the premium I had in mind had to be multiplied by the number of minutes' discussion and by the number of people present (unusually two attended the meeting from the broker's side).
Eventually crunch point was reached and the figure established: £92,000 plus, of course, insurance tax and interest since the premium was impossible to pay in one lump. This represented a figure eight times the premium of the previous year. I was then subjected to comments of how lucky we had been to get cover at all.
As is normal in the industry the 11th hour proposal leaves you with few viable alternatives. So from all this do we have to assume that our company has been delinquent with claims over the previous few years? Not so—we have had no claims on the public liability but have had a number over the past four years from employees. I would put these as probably average for the industry.
So, having had180,000 wiped off our bottom line over the course of our discussions, this leads me to make the following points: • Our government is very keen on recycling and looks to the waste industry to supply many jobs in the future.
• Claims for accidents are a lucrative business for the employee, the legal profession, the medical profession and the insurance assessors.
• I believe that the government has been lobbied by the insurance companies regarding this state of affairs, but the government is not listening owing to "social responsibilities".
• There is a change in culture. Youth has its rights to make a claim; people aged 30-40 may hesitate in making a claim, seeing the dichotomy of choice of continuous employment and chasing a pot of money from their employers.
• If there is an accident at work, there is the potential for a claim. The mitigation through considerations of fault seem insignificant. it happened" equals "entitlement".
I can only conclude that total mechanisation is the only answer to the waste industry and an increase in our charges to cover these impossible hidden costs of employment.
Would anyone with clever answers to this problem contact me on 0191567 4659—I need you!
• Legal Bulletin this issue examines the area of corporate responsibility for accidents; see page 25.