Accidents claims manager

Cargo claims are much more difficult to track and manage than the more traditional vehicle accident claims that safety pros deal with. In the case of an accident claim, the compands representative (your driver) is on the spot and knows what to do. In cargo claims, this may not be the case. A company can receive cargo claims days, even weeks, after the cargo has left your company s care. 

The market failure caused by myopia does not necessarily imply that safety regulations are necessary. For example, a concern about myopia by inexperienced railroads might suggest that there is a wider role for the insurance industry. Insurance assessors need to make a determination of the precautions taken by a new railroad and charge an appropriate premium to reflect the probability that accident claims will result in the future. Railroad management would be able to trade off the size of the insurance premium against the costs of preventive effort in determining the appropriate level of safety to provide. While there is no requirement for small railroads to hold insurance, most elect to do so. 

The standard contract usually indicates that the Project Manager speaks and acts for the Owner. When the Owner s representative gives working instructions directly to a craftsman, a situation of co-employership is set up. The workers get their check from one party (the contractor) but their working instructions and directions from another (the Owner). Thus they, in effect, have two employers. The courts hold both employers responsible in case of accident or injury. In cases where co-employership is claimed, both the Owner and the Project Manager are open for legal action. 

Even if a technical failure precedes the human action, the tendency is to put the blame on an inadequate response to the failure by an operator. Perrow claims that even in the best of industries, there is rampant attribution of accidents to operator error, to the neglect of errors by designers or managers [155], He dtes a U.S. Air Force study of aviation accidents demonstrating that the designation of human error (pilot error in this case) is a convenient classification for mishaps whose real cause is uncertain, complex, or embarrassing to the organization. 

Railroad labor representatives were more of a mixed mind. One union safety official refused to answer the question, citing his belief that safety has not really improved since 1980, but that instead, railroads have been under-reporting injuries and accidents. Another labor representative felt that the FRA is very cognizant of the financial condition of railroads and this affects its judgment. This respondent provided an anecdotal example, in which he claimed the FRA attempted to shut down a Midwestern terminal due to severe safety problems, but after rail management s pleas, the agency considered the company s poor financial condition and decided not to shut it down. 

Everything from ensuring compliance to recruiting drivers to handling cargo claims to preventing vehicle accidents needs to be managed effectively and efficiently. 

For the insurance industry, another aspect of risk is loss control. Loss control is controlling conditions that can lead to a loss. It is part of risk management. For an insurance company, loss control is helping insured customers prevent loss producing events. Few losses means few insurance claims. From a safety perspective, loss control helps clients manage safety and health, recognizes hazards and implements preventive measures. The measures eliminate accidents and incidents that create personal, property or financial losses for both parties. When loss control is effective, the insurance company and the insured gain benefits. 

One strategy is to assume that for each accident one or other of the factors discussed will predominate and then to identify the proportion of injuries attributable to each. Those who take this approach normally come to the view that in the overwhelming majority of cases it is the worker who is primarily responsible for the injury. Thus one observer has claimed that 85 per cent of accidents are due to lack of training and education, poor work habits or lack of motivation (see McAteer 1981, p. 938). The remainder are presumably due to management failures, unsafe conditions and the like. And an Australian mine manager once reported to a mining seminar that at his mine 3 per cent of accidents were due to unsafe conditions while 97 per cent were due to unsafe acts on the part of miners. He concluded that effort must be focussed on changing men s minds (AIMM 1975, p. 83). 

Machine guarding is visible evidence of management s interest in the worker and its commitment to a safe work environment. It is also to management s benefit, as unguarded machinery is a principal source of costly accidents, waste, compensation claims, and lost time. 

Specific questions about the number of occupational safety accidents there had been the year before revealed widespread ignorance. Ability to reply was structured largely according to position in the hierarchy (Chart 9.1). These differences very much reflected the contingencies of work, most particularly receipt of company reports (Ch. 7). Consideration of accident reports and statistics was part of managers workloads and they were the most confident that they saw accident reports and statistics whereas the workforce, in the context of these questions, did not refer to any accident data. The majority of safety representatives believed that they had access to the relevant accident information but not all supervisors received the accident data. Access to the data did not necessarily mean that it was read or retained. Safety representatives remarked that it could be very difficult to get through the data they received in addition to their other responsibilities. Managers claimed to read the information but... 

---