Insurance liability

As referred to above, most of the modules involve the intervention of a third party, the so-called notified bodies. These bodies are designated by Member States as being competent to carry out the certification tasks for which they are notified. As a precondition for their notification they must fulfil the minimum criteria which are set out in the relevant directives. These conditions vary from independence, impartiality and professional integrity, to technical competence, possession of or access to necessary facilities and to liability insurance. Once notified, the Commission publishes a list of all notified bodies in the Official Journal, It is worth noting that there is free competition between notified bodies and that manufacturers can make their own choice from all notified bodies notified within the European Union. 

Liability reduction. Facilities are responsible for their wastes from cradle-to-grave. By eliminating or reducing waste generation, future liabilities can also be decreased. Additionally, the need for expensive pollution liability insurance requirements may be abated. 

Workmen s compensation insurance at statutory limits and employers liability insurance... 

Employers liability insurance protecting the toller against common law liability, in the absence of statutory liability, for employee injury arising out of the master-servant relationship with a specified limit per occurrence. 

Commercial general liability insurance including products/ completed operations with limits of liability... 

Automobile liability insurance including nonowned and hired vehicles... 

Excess liability insurance over commercial general liability and comprehensive automobile liability coverages afforded by the primary policies... 

Environmental impairment liability insurance for nonsudden and accidental occurrences... 

A) Workmen s Compensation insurance at statutory limits and Employers Liability Insurance at not less than (X) aggregate and... 

The primary motivation of PSAs is to assess the risk of the plant to the public. The immediate purpose of the RSS was to support the Price-Anderson hearings on liability insurance (i.e., assess the financial exposure of a nuclear power reactor operator) a purpose which, even today, is beyond PSA technology. However, PSA is sufficiently precise to provide relative risk comparisons of reactor designs and sites. These uses of PSA were presented at the Indian Point hearings, and in defense of Shoreham. The PSAs for the high-population-zone plants (Limerick, Zion, and Indian Point) were prepared to show that specific features of these plants compensate for the higher population density relative to plants studied in the RSS. 

As previously stated, a business can be held legally liable to pay compensation (damages) for injury or damage caused by its activities, and a successful action against it may result in large financial demands upon the business. Liability insurance ensures that, subject to satisfactory compliance with specified conditions and procedures by the insured, funds are available for a business if it is held... 

There is a legal requirement upon most employers to have in force employer s liability insurance covering injury to their employees. Public liability insurance, while not compulsory, is strongly recommended, both in terms of third-party liability (arising from the effects of corporate activities) and product liability (arising from the effects of corporate products. 

The following provides a general summary of the cover provided by standard liability insurance policies. 

As stated in previous sections of this chapter, there exists at all times a statutory and common law duty on all employers (which includes all engineers) to maintain a safe working environment for all their employees and the public at large. Additionally, it is contractual obligation on the insured under liability insurance policies to maintain the best reasonable standards of working procedures, equipment and the environment at all times. Consequently, there is a duty on all engineers to conduct their... 

Employer Liability. Today more than ever before, employers are being challenged by their employees to prove that all possible effort was employed to reduce hazards in their work place. Many employers had not been able to prove they had done this, and, therefore, they have suffered costly settlements and increased liability insurance expenses. 

The few asbestos-processing plants do not pay for these costs, as they would presumably only have been able to do so with a very good third-party liability insurance, which for its part would have caused the product price to increase sharply. These costs are paid by the coimnunity of user and non-user plants in a particular industry via the employers habihty insurance in the constraction industry and the employers liability insurances in the metal industry). 

In many other cases of work-related exposure to hazardous substances, however, the cause/effect correlations do not permit such unequivocal proof. The number of acknowledged industrial diseases caused by hazardous substances should thus be much lower than the number of persons actually affected. Thus, the risks of compensation are accordingly low for the employers as the contributors to the employers liability insurance schemes. 

The high costs (approx. 30 m. per annum) of the construction employers liability insurance, caused by incidences of bricklayer s itch are important innovation drivers. Since the mid 1970s the construction employers habihty insurance, has endeavoured in consultations with the Association of German Cement Works to obtain a reduction of the chromate content in cement Further initiatives such as e.g. GISBAU" and also regulations have stepped up the pressure on cement manufacturers. 

Innovation drivers Alternative paint strippers have been developed as a consequence of the chlorine debate . However, neither the detailed requirements related to occupational health and safety (TRGS 612 and 212) nor the lower efficiency (cf (3)) clearly supported the penetration of the market with the alternative paint stripping systems. One barrier may be that the users have to change their work and purchasing procedures to apply the alternatives successfully. By end of the nineties the construction employers liability insurance started, based on the public media, an information campaign about the risks of DCM-containing paint strippers. 

Examples of functioning co-operation are partnerships between automotive producers, coating and installation manufacturers for the development and operation of low-emission automotive series coatings and co-operation between the employers liability insurance, IG Metall, lubricant manufacturers and metal processors in the creation of health-related standards for cooling lubricants. 

The manufacturers of a mass product that is far from the end-user, such as cement or concrete, are under extreme price competition and slightest changes in, say, the cost stracture can be decisive. Elimination of water-soluble chrome-VI compounds that cause chromate-induced eczema would only increase the price of the product minimally. And even if the severe price competition did in fact permit this increased margin (which is highly probable in this example), there has been no significant iimovation push. Uirfortunately, this occupational disease is hardly perceived by the public and the costs incurred by this type of eczema evidently can be externalised by the cement industry (and covered by the employer s liability insurance). 

---