CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS’

LIABILITY CLAIMS INDEX

Benchmarking construction industry risks and claims

Risk analysis
and insight
CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY CLAIMS INDEX
 Benchmarking Exercise 3

CONTENTS
Introduction5

What factors influenced claims in 2016? 6

Key questions for main contractors 8

Summary & observations 14

What to expect in 2018 15

Glossary  16

Appendices: Our methodology and supporting data  17

4 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY CLAIMS INDEX
 Benchmarking Exercise 5

INTRODUCTION
Welcome to JLT’s third Employers’ Liability Index, our annual
benchmarking exercise for construction industry risks and claims.
Construction is a dangerous activity. If not carefully managed, the risks can result
in death or serious injury.

The UK’s largest construction companies participate in this annual benchmarking

exercise. We analyse the financial aspect of this construction risk: the cost of
personal injury claims on their employers’ liability (EL) insurance.

Benchmarking allows us to see how this risk changes over time. Each
participant’s details are made available to them confidentially.

By doing this, we help individual companies understand their risk performance,

which is a key element to improving their risk management.

Please note the emboldened terms throughout this whitepaper are defined in
the glossary on page 16.

WHY EL INSURANCE?
Simply, EL insurance is a statutory requirement. Consistent policy wordings,
along with the absence of excesses, make it easy to analyse and compare one
company’s performance against its peers.

BENCHMARK YOUR COMPANY

AGAINST INDUSTRY LEADERS
Would you like to participate in the 2018 exercise?

We are offering you the chance to measure your performance against your
competition. Receive a confidential report, packed with valuable data. See
where you’re excelling, and pinpoint areas that need improvement.

Please contact one of the authors for more information.

THANK YOU
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the clients and prospects who
participated in this exercise. And we look forward to engaging with a broader
range of companies for the 2018 exercise.
6 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY CLAIMS INDEX

OVERVIEW WHAT FACTORS

INFLUENCED CLAIMS IN 2016-2017?
CONSTRUCTION From an EL claims perspective, a post-
referendum reduction in construction activity could
ACTIVITY LEVELS
result in fewer claims being logged for 2017.
However, in times of recession it is not uncommon
Construction output in the UK hit £99 billion in
to see increased personal injury claims activity;
2016, says the Office of National Statistics (ONS).
unemployed or vulnerable workers may take a
This figure is up on 2015’s total of £92 billion. “UK
different approach to injuries than those with
manufacturing and construction ended 2016 on
secure employment prospects.
a strong note,” noted The Guardian. “ONS data
showed increased output, as the economy defied
Brexit uncertainty.” SKILLS SHORTAGE
Financially, this is good news. However, increased
UK construction’s skills shortage is in danger of
construction activity brings with it an increased
escalating, as reported above. This could reverse
risk of accidents and fatalities.
the downward trend of attritional claims, and
amplify the increase of catastrophic claims.

Labour shortages have a negative effect on

FIND OUT MORE
What’s affecting your construction
premiums? Read our online
magazine Constructive Insight for
the inside track on the state of the
construction insurance market.
www.jltspecialty.com/constructive-insight
BREXIT
The EU referendum result, on 23 June 2016,
sparked fears of a drop in construction activity
and an intensifying of the skills shortage.
As discussed above, construction output
increased in 2016. However, Brexit fears could
have a greater effect on 2017’s figures.
In September 2017, the industry went into
recession. Negative growth was recorded, as
projects planned before the EU referendum failed
to materialise.
safety, as a more transitory, less skilled workforce
comes into play. Accidents are more likely, as
it’s more challenging to bring short-term workers
into a company’s safety culture and training
programmes.
Skill shortages will have an inflationary effect
on wages, also, due to supply and demand
imbalances. This will increase the average cost
per claim through uplifts in the loss of actual and
future earnings calculations.
FIND OUT MORE
How to get the best staff: Read our
blog – Managing the Construction
Skills Shortage, for expert insight on
recruitment.
www.jltspecialty.com/skills-shortage

LEGAL COSTS
The 2013 Jackson reforms and the Ministry of
Justice (MoJ) Claims Portal continue to affect
claims data positively.
Prior to the 2013 reforms, court costs had
been mounting out of proportion to the value
of claims being made. Following Lord Justice
Jackson’s review of the civil litigation system,
recommendations were made to promote access
to justice at proportionate cost. As a result, legal
costs fell.
The Claims Portal, also created to reduce
litigation costs, is an online mechanism for
processing low value personal injury claims. This
has reduced not only the legal costs associated
with EL claims but also the time taken to
compensate genuine claimants.
LEGAL NOTE: CHANGES TO THE
PERSONAL INJURY DISCOUNT RATE
In March 2017, the personal injury discount rate
(PIDR) was reduced from 2.5% to minus 0.75%.
New legislation is likely, and is set to increase the
rate to between 0% and 1%.
The PIDR (also known as the Ogden rate)
influences the amount of a lump sum awarded in
a successful personal injury claim. Rate changes
of a fraction of a percentage have a huge impact
on the cost of risk.
Our supporting data was collected prior to
March 2017, before the PIDR rate was reduced.
The PIDR reduction prompted most insurers to
increase reserves significantly on the more serious
injury/fatal accident cases. Therefore a rate
increase will have an effect on the cost of claims,
likely to be felt most on catastrophic cases.
As a result, none of the findings in this report are
attributable to the PIDR change. Future analysis
will reflect PIDR changes to personal injury claims.
Benchmarking Exercise 7
FIND OUT MORE
“How does the PIDR affect my bottom
line?” For expert advice on what PIDR
changes could cost your business, read
our blog – Ogden Discount Rate.
www.jltspecialty.com/ogden
SAFETY TECHNOLOGY
Exciting new technological advances are
revolutionising the construction industry and the
way that works are being delivered.
One of the world’s least digitised industries,
historically, it has been a slow adopter of
innovation. For employees, it is a high-risk
occupation, with relatively high mortality and injury
rates.
Annually, some 3% of employees sustain a work-
related injury. And 43 workers were fatally injured
in 2015/16, according to Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) figures.
Emerging technologies bring many opportunities
to improve construction health and safety,
improving everything from workplace safety to
quality of work and delivery times.
FIND OUT MORE
Make new tech work for you: Reduce
risk in all areas of your business, from
construction site to office space. Read
our article from Building Sight Edition 2 -
Technological Innovations in Construction
for more information.
www.jltspecialty.com/tech-construction
8 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY CLAIMS INDEX
KEY QUESTIONS FOR
MAIN CONTRACTORS
Employee injuries affect multiple aspects of your business, from insurance costs
and management time to reputation. Here, we analyse the combined EL claims
data in four key areas and ask the following questions:
1. How many claims are being made?
2. What is the average cost of a claim?
3. How much is the total cost relative to the cost of the resource?
4. How efficiently are claims handled?
1. HOW MANY EL CLAIMS ARE BEING MADE?
HEADLINE RESULTS
ALL CLAIMS
There were 2.26 claims per £10 million of
wage roll. This is a modest reduction of
2% on the 2016 results.
CLAIMS OVER £1 MILLION
There were 0.0062 claims per £10 million
of wage roll. This is a massive increase of
68% on the 2016 result.
DETAILED RESULTS
DOWN
All claims in Excess of £1,000
We measured the number of claims received per
£10 million of manual wage roll. The frequency
of claims within the 2017 results was 2.26. This
compares well with the 2016 results, which was
2.31, so a small reduction of circa 2%.
What is more noticeable is the reduction in recent
years within the 2017 results.
Figure 1 represents the reduction since 2012.
This shows a significant reduction of almost 25%.
While this is very encouraging, we must make
sure it is not based on over-optimism. For EL
claims, the phenomenon of loss development
must be considered. This arises from a number of
factors, two of which are:
• The statute of limitations, which allows injured
parties to bring claims against their employers
for at least three years from the date of injury
• Time taken to understand the full extent of
injuries (and to allocate an accurate reserve).
We would expect to see loss development
exhibited in recent claims experiences so we
have chosen to exclude the 2016 year from our
analysis. We have focused on the years 2015 and
before to ensure that the claims data is sufficiently
mature to deliver meaningful results.
On this basis we hope a projected improvement
in loss experiences will ultimately become clear as
this data matures.
The reason for this is most likely to be a result of
the 2013 Jackson reforms and the subsequent
implementation of the MoJ Portal for EL claims.
Is this an industry trend? Or simply evidence
of claims development? We will be monitoring
this metric closely in future exercises to validate
our analysis.
 Benchmarking Exercise 9

FIGURE 1: Claims frequency 2012 - 2015 (losses over £1,000)

3.0
No. of claims per £10m of wageroll

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
2012 2013 2014 2015
Years

3.0
0.007
No. of claims per £10m of wageroll
No. of claims per £10m of wageroll

UP2.5
0.006
Claims in Excess of £1million
0.0052.0
For 2017 we have carried out some extra analysis These results paint a very different picture to the
0.004
in relation to1.5
claims frequency which looks solely analysis of all claims reflecting an uplift of 68%.
at claims in excess of £1 million. The rate of catastrophic claims has increased
0.003
1.0 from 0.0037 per £10 million of wage roll to
The 2017 results are presented in Figure 2 shown
0.002 0.0062, reflecting an increase of 68%. This is
relative to the 2016 results.
0.5 evidence of a substantial increase in the number
0.001 of catastrophic claims.
0.0
0 2012 2013 2014 2015
FIGURE 2: Claims frequency (losses over £1 million)
2016 results Years 2017 results

0.007
No. of claims per £10m of wageroll

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0
2016 results 2017 results
10 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY CLAIMS INDEX

2. HOW MUCH DOES THE AVERAGE CLAIM COST?

claims in the 2016 results. The aggregate value

HEADLINE RESULTS
• T
he average cost for all claims is circa
£31,000, a modest increase of 2.5%
• This increases to £1.5 million for
claims in excess of £1 million.
of cases in this band has also increased by over
65% from £8.2 million between 2009 and 2014,
to £13.6 million between 2010 and 2015.
If we remove these high value claims we can see
a pronounced downward trend for the industry.

This is evidenced by the average cost per claim

DETAILED RESULTS
UP
All Claims in Excess of £1,000
Firstly we only considered those claims in excess
of £1,000, with no upper limit. The average cost
across all six years of the 2017 results was
£30,699, a small increase of circa 2.5% compared
to the 2016 results.
Interestingly, there are markedly different results
when examining the data with a £1 million cap
applied. We have done this as a small number of
very large claims can skew the results significantly.
For example, the 2017 results contain nine claims
in excess of £1 million, an increase from four
in the 2017 results, as detailed in the graph in
Figure 3.
The average cost per claim has declined each
year since 2011, but 2015 shows a more marked
reduction; the 2015 average cost per claim is
52.5% lower than in 2011.
Again, we may attribute this positive development
to the implementation of the 2013 Jackson
reforms and the establishment of the MoJ Portal
for EL claims.
But there is a possibility that this is the impact
of undeveloped claims in the 2015 year, which
might increase once matured. We expect to be
in a position to comment more definitively on
this in 2018.

FIGURE 3: Average cost 2011 - 2015 (claims over £1,000 and less than £1 million)

35,000

30,000
Average cost per claim (£)

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0.0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Years

2.5
m (£m)

2.0
 Benchmarking Exercise 11

35,000

Average cost per claim (£) 30,000

DOWN
25,000
Claims in Excess of £1 million

20,000
Our next analysis looks at just those claims in from £2 million in the 2016 exercise. The average
excess of £1 million. We have already identified has reduced by 25%, although the total incurred
15,000
a trend of increasing frequency of these cost across all participants has risen significantly
catastrophic
10,000 claims. Is the average cost also due to the increased frequency. This is shown
increasing? The average cost of these claims in in Figure 4.
5,000
the 2017 results was circa £1.5 million, down

0.0
FIGURE 4: Average2011 2012
cost (claims over £1 million) 2013 2014 2015
Years

2.5
Average cost per claim (£m)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
2016 results 2017 results

3. HOW MUCH IS THE TOTAL COST RELATIVE

TO THE COST OF THE RESOURCE?

The potential trend of improvement within the

HEADLINE RESULTS 2017 results identified in the other key metrics
was replicated for claims in excess of £1,000.
• The cost of EL claims is circa 0.7% of
wage roll, which is largely unchanged The diagram in Figure 5 shows this metric for
since the last exercise.
each of the years analysed. With the exception of
an increase in 2011, there is a general downward
DETAILED RESULTS trend in this metric. A substantial correction
appears for claims arising from incidents in 2015.
NO CHANGE
Claims in Excess of £1,000 Once again, we must be careful not to confuse
the potential impact of loss development. But
The total cost of claims as a percentage of
this is a positive result and one that we hope will
wage roll exposure was unchanged from the
persist as the Jackson reforms continue to have
2016 results. It remained stable at 0.69% of the
influence on the construction EL landscape.
wage roll.
12 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY CLAIMS INDEX

FIGURE 5: Claims frequency 2012 - 2015 (losses over £1,000)

Total claims cost as % of manual wageroll

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
Total claims cost as % of manual wageroll

1.2
0.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1.0 Years

0.8
Total claims cost as % of manual wageroll

0.10
There is another
0.6 cause for concern for a percentage of exposure has increased from
catastrophic claims. As well as increased 0.76% in the 2016 results to 0.94% in the
0.08
frequency, 0.4
there is also an increase in the cost of 2017 results. This is an increase of 24%. When
claims relative to wage roll. This is shown in considered alongside inflationary factors, this
Figure 6.0.06
0.2total cost of claims expressed as
The increase is even greater in ‘real terms’.

0.0
0.04
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
FIGURE 6: Claims frequency (losses over £1 million)
Years
0.02
Total claims cost as % of manual wageroll

0.10
0
2016 results 2017 results
0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
2016 results 2017 results
 Benchmarking Exercise 13

4. ARE CLAIMS BEING HANDLED EFFECTIVELY?

HEADLINE RESULTS
• 2017 saw a reduction in average
time to settle by over 105 to 824
days per claim.

DETAILED RESULTS

DOWN
Average Settlement Time

This is one area where we have seen a marked
improvement since the 2016 exercise. There
were concerns expressed in our 2016 analysis
that this key metric had seen a substantial
increase on the 2014 results.
Our recalculated figure for the 2016 exercise
was 924 days per claim. This has improved
substantially in the 2017 results to 824 days,
a reduction of more than 10%.

FIGURE 7: Average time to settle

940
920
900
Days since occurrence

880
860
840
820
800
780
760
2016 results 2017 results
14 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY CLAIMS INDEX

SUMMARY
WHAT MADE A HOW WILL THESE
DIFFERENCE TO YOUR DEVELOPMENTS
BOTTOM LINE IN 2016-17? AFFECT YOUR
BUSINESS IN 2018?
• Attritional claims: The Jackson reforms The improvement in smaller value claims
are working. And so is the MoJ Claims contrasts with a worsening of high value claims.
Portal. The results provide evidence that the It represents an interesting divergence in EL
position for small and medium value claims claims experiences.
is improving. There were reductions in claims
We are keen to establish whether this trend will
frequency, cost as a percentage of exposure,
continue. If it does, the insurance market could re-
average cost per claim and time to settle.
evaluate the relative cost of risk between primary
Historically, construction has suffered as a
and excess layer positions and, consequently, the
result of the imbalance between claimant and
appetite for risk retention.
defendant positions. These results, compared
to 2016, are a positive development for the
construction industry.
• Catastrophic claims: must do better. FIND OUT MORE
The position is not so encouraging for the Boost your ability to defend
large, catastrophic claims environment. claims: A pricey EL claim could
The average cost per claim has reduced, wreak havoc on your business, by
our analysis shows. But there has been a greatly inflating your future insurance
substantial deterioration, over the past 12 premiums. Discover how to manage
months, in both claims frequency and the claims to get the best outcomes in
cost of higher value claims as a percentage of our paper – Claims Defensibility.
exposure.
www.jltspecialty.com/claims-defensibility
• PIDR: watch this space. There is no impact
in these results from the discount rate
reduction introduced in March 2017. Initially
reduced from 2.5% to minus 0.75%, it is
likely to reduce overall to between 0% and
1% in the predicted new regime (currently
thought to be from Easter 2018 although
recent comments from the Commons Justice
Committee indicate this may be later in the
year). This is expected to contribute to further
deterioration for large losses when we repeat
this analysis in 2018.

WHAT TO EXPECT IN 2018
OPPORTUNITIES AND
CHALLENGES FOR
THE YEAR AHEAD
BREXIT AFTERSHOCK
“The combination of the plummeting pound, a
slowing UK labour market and the psychological
impact of Brexit, making EU nationals feel less
welcome in Britain, are all expected drive the fall,”
commented the Daily Telegraph in an October
2017 report about the drop in EU worker numbers
coming to the UK.
It remains to be seen what will have a greater
effect on claims in the 2017 figures. Will staff
shortages – leading to less well-trained and
accident prone workforce – inflate EL claims? Or
will the industry continue to contract, resulting
in reduced construction activity, a reduction in
accidents and fewer EL claims?
HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
• Technological advances, including the use
of unmanned vehicles and using drones for
inspections, will continue to have a positive
effect on site safety. Figures are unavailable
but will have to be examined as a contributing
factor in the light of any reductions in
claims. This was previously discussed on
page 3, What factors influenced the claims
environment in 2016?
• Mental health is coming into focus. And
not before time. Construction employs 2.1
million workers, with some 350,000 people
Benchmarking Exercise 15
experiencing mental illness. This focus on
improving mental health is great for the
workforce and workplace safety. The Mates
in Mind programme has been set up to
tackle the high levels of poor mental health
in construction. The brainchild of the Health
in Construction Leadership Group and the
British Safety Council consists of three training
modules and aims to help employers support
their staff. Civil engineering body, CECA, has
initiated the Stop. Make a Change campaign,
encouraging companies to discuss issues
such as mental health and fatigue.
RISING PREMIUMS?
There are some indications that the insurance
market may be hardening; in layman’s terms,
that means there would be fewer insurers
around, and deals would be harder to negotiate.
Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma caused
untold destruction, and had a catastrophic effect
on insurers’ reserves. A hard market is where
specialist brokers come into their own, finessing
policies to gain the most affordable deals for
their clients.
REDUCED COSTS
Litigation costs have dropped in recent years,
more than likely as a result of the recent Jackson
reforms and the creation of the MoJ Claims
Portal. As data matures, we should gain a more
accurate idea of how beneficial these innovations
have been. Likely changes to the PIDR, should
lower the lump sum pay-outs in catastrophic
personal injury cases, with a subsequent knock on
effect on insurance premiums and renewals.
16 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY CLAIMS INDEX
GLOSSARY
Definitions of the insurance, construction and legal terms used in this document.
2016 RESULTS
The results for the period 01 January 2009 to 31
December 2014, produced as part of the 2016
benchmarking exercise.
2017 RESULTS
The results for the period 01 January 2010 to 31
December 2015, produced as part of the 2017
benchmarking exercise.
ATTRITIONAL CLAIM
An individual claim with a total cost of less than
£1 million.
CATASTROPHIC CLAIM
An individual claim with a total cost of more than
£1 million.
EL INSURANCE
Also known as employers’ liability insurance. A
form of coverage that protects the holder against
the cost of employee claims arising from illness or
injury, which have been sustained as a result of
their work. EL insurance is a legal requirement for
any business that employs one or more people.
JACKSON REFORMS
Changes to the civil litigation costs system as
a result of Lord Justice Jackson’s wide-ranging
review. Lord Justice Jackson was required to
make recommendations in order to promote
access to justice at proportionate cost. The
reforms came into effect in 2013.
LOSS DEVELOPMENT
Loss development refers to the increase in claims
costs over time. It is not possible to be certain of
the profitability of a policy at its expiry date. In the
case of EL insurance, claims can be made up to
three years after the injury, and even at that stage
it may not be possible to know the full extent of
long term injuries.
As a result, the total of all claims against a
policy year tends to increase as time passes, until
a point when all claims are received and then
settled. This increase in cost over time is called
loss development.
MOJ CLAIMS PORTAL
Online mechanism for processing low value
personal injury claims, set up by the Ministry
of Justice.
PIDR
Personal injury discount rate. Also known as the
Ogden rate, the PIDR influences the lump sum
paid out for successful personal injury or fatal
claims. When courts calculate compensation,
they apply a discount to recognise that claimants
will earn investment returns on their lump sum
payments. This discount is calculated by applying
the net per annum percentage rate of return
that the claimant could expect from prudent
investment of the lump sum. This percentage is
known as the PIDR.

APPENDICES
How we turned your data into hard facts
APPENDIX 1: METHODOLOGY
The 2017 exercise was widened to include major
UK contractors outside the top 25 by turnover.
This resulted in an increased participation count of
16 (up from 13 in 2016).
Most of the contributors were JLT construction
clients but there remained similar participation
levels to 2016 from non-JLT clients.
We will look to further expand the breadth of
participants for the 2018 report to ensure it
continues to consider a cross section of the
construction industry.
In line with the 2016 exercise, data was obtained
from each contractor in relation to:
• Claims experience for each calendar year
for the period 2010 to 2015. Claims occurring
from 01 January 2016 were deemed to be
insufficiently mature for analysis and so were
excluded from the data set. The information
provided by participants includes:
-- Date of loss
-- Amount paid
-- Outstanding reserve
-- Closed date (where applicable).
• Exposure information for the company,
being the employers’ liability declarations
for manual wage roll (including labour only
subcontractors, agency staff, etc.) for
each period.
Benchmarking Exercise 17
Through the course of our previous analyses,
we identified key metrics relating to employers’
liability exposures. We have used the 2017 data to
produce new values for these metrics.
The actual claims settlement amounts have been
used without the application of any arbitrary
allowance for trending or development.
It is important to note that, on this basis, any
apparent improvement in recent years may be
explained simply by the immaturity in the loss
development profile.
Considering 3,273 claims (up from 2,504 in
2016), the 2017 aggregated data set has
significant statistical relevance. This is evidenced
by a total wage roll exposure value of more than
£14.5 billion over the period 2010 to 2015
(circa £10.85 billion for the 2009 to 2014
benchmarking exercise).
Having gathered this information we conducted an
extensive exercise to compare and contrast with
the data collected in 2016.
This highlighted some anomalies in the
data provided by participants for the 2016
benchmarking exercise. In these circumstances
we recalculated the 2016 results in order to
provide a proper like-for-like comparison with
those from 2017. 
18 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY CLAIMS INDEX

APPENDIX 2: KEY METRICS

The four main areas analysed in this exercise
remain the same as 2016:
CLAIMS FREQUENCY
The number of claims relative to exposure,
ie, the wage roll of the company in relation to
employers’ liability. Within the analysis we have
calculated frequency as the number of claims
incurred for each £10 million of wage roll. This
approach equalises the data to a common base
level allowing normalised comparison of the
participants.
AVERAGE COST PER CLAIM
AVERAGE SETTLEMENT TIME
In our experience, proactive claims handling is
a clear pathway to a better managed claims
experience and as a result, reduced costs.
Claims that are left to progress at the claimant’s
schedule tend to settle for additional costs, due to
a combination of increased solicitors’ fees and the
inevitable loss or weakening of evidence
over time.
As a result, we have measured the average
time period from the date of the incident to the
settlement date. Live claims are not therefore
included as there is no settlement or closure date.

This metric is the total cost of claims (both paid
and outstanding) divided by the total number
of claims. Care has been taken to avoid falsely
inflating the number of claims by removing
reported losses that have not incurred significant
cost or were closed without payment. This
includes cases where there might be a low
payment for investigation or defence costs only
rather than payment of damages on a claim.
These are factors which are outside the scope
of this analysis and are more appropriately
considered by reference to audit of the relevant
claims handler.
Notwithstanding this, there must also be a risk
that claims settled too promptly, without due
scrutiny or detailed consideration of the legal
liability position, will also lead to above average
claims costs.

TOTAL COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF

EXPOSURE

This metric is calculated by taking the total claims

cost (paid and outstanding) and expressing it as a
percentage of the wage roll exposure figure. This
also leads to a consistent basis of comparison
and is useful in understanding the true cost of
accidents relative to the cost of the resource (ie,
wage roll cost or ‘cost of employment’).
 Benchmarking Exercise 19

HERE TO HELP
Get in touch to find out what our team can do for you.
Visit www.jltspecialty.com/construction

JLT SPECIALTY

JLT Specialty Limited provides insurance broking, risk management and claims consulting
services to large and international companies. Our success comes from focusing on sectors
where we know we can make the greatest difference, using insight, intelligence and imagination
to provide expert advice and robust - often unique - solutions.

We build partner teams to work side-by-side with you, our network and the market to deliver
responses which are carefully considered from all angles.

Our construction team is London’s largest of construction broking specialists. For over 25 years,
we have worked in partnership with our clients, delivering unrivalled service and innovative
solutions which have challenged and continue to shape the construction insurance industry.

Our integrated team of over 135 experts – across service, broking and claims – work together to
provide exceptional service.

A primary point of contact ensures our clients can access a team with the breadth and depth of
experience to meet their risk and insurance needs.
CONTACTS
DAVID CAHILL
Business Development Leader, Construction
JLT Specialty
+44 (0)20 7558 3482
dave_cahill@jltgroup.com

JULIA KENNY
Account Handler, Construction
JLT Specialty
+44 20 7558 3139
julia_kenny@jltgroup.com

If you are interested in utilising the services of JLT Speciality Limited you
may be required by/under your local regulatory regime to utilise the services
of a local insurance intermediary in your territory to export insurance and
(re)insurance to us unless you have an exemption and should take advice
in this regard.
This document is compiled for the benefit of clients and prospective clients
of companies of the JLT group of companies (“JLT”). It is not legal advice
and is intended only to highlight general issues relating to its subject matter;
it does not necessarily deal with every aspect of the topic. Views and
opinions expressed in this document are those of JLT unless specifically
stated otherwise. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy
of the content of this document, no JLT entity accepts any responsibility
for any error, or omission or deficiency. If you intend to take any action
or make any decision on the basis of the content of this document, you
should first seek specific professional advice. The information contained
within this document may not be reproduced and nothing herein shall be
construed as conferring to you by implication or otherwise any licence or
right to use any JLT intellectual property.

JLT Specialty Limited
The St Botolph Building
138 Houndsditch
London EC3A 7AW
Tel +44 (0)20 7528 4000
Fax +44 (0)20 7528 4500
www.jltspecialty.com

­­­
Lloyd’s Broker. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
A member of the Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group. Registered Office:
The St Botolph Building, 138 Houndsditch, London EC3A 7AW.
Registered in England No. 01536540. VAT No. 244 2321 96.
© December 2017 276033