Hybrid cars have been found to offer a significant safety advantage conventional rivals because of their additional weight helps reduce the severity of crashes, according to a new study from the Highways Loss Data Institute (HLDI).
The US non-profit organisation dedicated to reducing deaths, injuries, found that the odds of being injured in a crash are 25 per cent lower for people in a hybrid car than for people travelling in a non-hybrid models.
"Weight is a big factor," explains Matt Moore, HLDI vice president and an author of the report. "Hybrids on average are 10 per cent heavier than their standard counterparts. This extra mass gives them an advantage in crashes that their conventional twins don’t have."
However the Institute acknowledges that other factors may also be contributing to the safety of hybrid models, such as how, when and by whom hybrids are driven. To maximise the fuel efficiency benefits of a hybrid car, hybrid drivers often adopt a greener driving style-such as looking further ahead to avoid harsh braking-which is known to be a safer style too.
According to the Institute the new findings are good news for green-minded drivers who don’t want to trade safety for fuel economy. Not so long ago, car buyers had to choose between the two because fuel-efficient cars tended to be smaller and lighter. Now, consumers have more options than ever when it comes to picking an environmentally friendly — and crashworthy — vehicle.
"Saving at the pump no longer means you have to skimp on crash protection," Moore says.
In the study, HLDI estimated the odds that a crash would result in injuries if people were riding in a hybrid versus the conventional version of the same vehicle. The analysis included more than 25 hybrid-conventional vehicle pairs, all 2003-2011 models, with at least 1 collision claim and at least 1 related injury claim filed under personal injury protection or medical payment coverage in 2002-10.
Read more - http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/2011/11/17/hybrid-cars-are-safer-concludes-report/
Tuesday 27 December 2011
Tuesday 20 December 2011
Motor market fights back, declare experts
Ernst & Young has predicted a significant improvement in the motor insurance industry’s 2011 results following analysis of the UK market’s Q3 statements.
According to the accountants, the market suffered losses of more than £5bn across 2009 and 2010, but premium rate increases and a stemming of inflation on non-injury claims could lead to the results improving this year by 20%.
Ernst & Young highlighted that in 2010 a market ratio of nearly 121% was the worst set of results for the industry since 1988.
It added that the price increases of that year and early 2011 were the key driver in the expected 20% improvement along with greater control of claim costs.
Catherine Barton, partner and actuary in the financial services division at Ernst & Young, commented: "Insurers were caught in a perfect storm in 2009 and 2010 - referral fees led to more costs creeping into the system, individuals' awareness of the ability to claim - legitimately or otherwise - led to smaller injury claims spiralling upwards, while at the same time price competition continued unabated.
"The losses were unsustainable - by 2009 the market had either run out of reserves to prop up performance or accepted that there were fundamental problems within the market that needed to be addressed. Insurers have now responded with price rises and more focus on claims cost control, which we believe will see the tide being turned."
Bodily injury costs
However the company also noted that whereas a decade ago bodily injury costs were around a third of total claims cost, they are now rapidly approaching two thirds and that the uncertainty this causes for insurers in anticipating their underlying performance is posing increasing challenges to their business model.
"As injury claims stay open for longer, exposed to the ever-present threats of legislative and economic changes, the ability for insurers to understand their true performance and to price appropriately for it becomes ever more difficult," said Ms Barton.
"We suspect that bodily injury inflation will continue to be a problem, but insurers now appear to be more focused on the risks; they have turned to claims transformation programs to help detect fraud and manage claims, they have taken corrective rating action and also turned their attention to using extra external data to improve their current rating and underwriting methods. As their new programmes bed-in, we expect to see much improved performance in 2011 and 2012."
However Ms Barton warned that increased competition from new entrants and current insurers looking to grow their books of business meant there was no guarantee the improvement in the cycle would be sustained.
Read more: http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news/2130342/motor-market-fights-declare-experts#ixzz1g1nXtbu2
Ernst & Young highlighted that in 2010 a market ratio of nearly 121% was the worst set of results for the industry since 1988.
It added that the price increases of that year and early 2011 were the key driver in the expected 20% improvement along with greater control of claim costs.
Catherine Barton, partner and actuary in the financial services division at Ernst & Young, commented: "Insurers were caught in a perfect storm in 2009 and 2010 - referral fees led to more costs creeping into the system, individuals' awareness of the ability to claim - legitimately or otherwise - led to smaller injury claims spiralling upwards, while at the same time price competition continued unabated.
"The losses were unsustainable - by 2009 the market had either run out of reserves to prop up performance or accepted that there were fundamental problems within the market that needed to be addressed. Insurers have now responded with price rises and more focus on claims cost control, which we believe will see the tide being turned."
Bodily injury costs
However the company also noted that whereas a decade ago bodily injury costs were around a third of total claims cost, they are now rapidly approaching two thirds and that the uncertainty this causes for insurers in anticipating their underlying performance is posing increasing challenges to their business model.
"As injury claims stay open for longer, exposed to the ever-present threats of legislative and economic changes, the ability for insurers to understand their true performance and to price appropriately for it becomes ever more difficult," said Ms Barton.
"We suspect that bodily injury inflation will continue to be a problem, but insurers now appear to be more focused on the risks; they have turned to claims transformation programs to help detect fraud and manage claims, they have taken corrective rating action and also turned their attention to using extra external data to improve their current rating and underwriting methods. As their new programmes bed-in, we expect to see much improved performance in 2011 and 2012."
However Ms Barton warned that increased competition from new entrants and current insurers looking to grow their books of business meant there was no guarantee the improvement in the cycle would be sustained.
Read more: http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news/2130342/motor-market-fights-declare-experts#ixzz1g1nXtbu2
Wednesday 14 December 2011
Ban on referral fees is looming but enforcement could prove tricky
There is a crucial get-out clause that means referral fees in personal injury claims may continue to be paid in disguise.
I pay a legitimate commission. You pay a shady referral fee. He pays a bribe. Welcome to the fierce debate over the impending ban on referral fees in personal injury claims.
It has only added to the furore over the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill, which peers will start dissecting line by line on 20 December. Combined with the Jackson reforms to civil litigation costs in part 2 of the bill, new clauses 54 to 58, introduced in the Commons, will "reduce legal costs and speculative suing, so that businesses, schools and individuals can be less fearful of unnecessary claims encouraged by those looking for profit rather than justice", said the justice secretary, Ken Clarke.
But will it work? Despite pressure from his Labour predecessor, Jack Straw, the government has decided against making the payment or receipt of a referral fee a criminal offence. It recognises the difficulty of defining a referral fee in such a way that ensures less straightforward arrangements are caught and lead to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Read more - http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/dec/06/ban-referral-fees-looming?newsfeed=true
I pay a legitimate commission. You pay a shady referral fee. He pays a bribe. Welcome to the fierce debate over the impending ban on referral fees in personal injury claims.
It has only added to the furore over the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill, which peers will start dissecting line by line on 20 December. Combined with the Jackson reforms to civil litigation costs in part 2 of the bill, new clauses 54 to 58, introduced in the Commons, will "reduce legal costs and speculative suing, so that businesses, schools and individuals can be less fearful of unnecessary claims encouraged by those looking for profit rather than justice", said the justice secretary, Ken Clarke.
But will it work? Despite pressure from his Labour predecessor, Jack Straw, the government has decided against making the payment or receipt of a referral fee a criminal offence. It recognises the difficulty of defining a referral fee in such a way that ensures less straightforward arrangements are caught and lead to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Read more - http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/dec/06/ban-referral-fees-looming?newsfeed=true
Wednesday 7 December 2011
Personal Injury Claims Turn on Medical Evidence
Medical Evidence is key when determining the value of any personal injury claim. It is imperative that the right medical expert is asked to report on your injuries.
Your solicitor will select the most appropriate medical expert from the relevant discipline (e.g. an orthopaedic expert to assess a fracture, or an opthalmologist to assess an eye injury). The expert should be provided with copies of all your relevant medical records and scans. They will then examine and assess you before preparing a detailed report which can then be used as medical evidence in your case. The value of your claim will be determined by the medical evidence obtained on your behalf.
It is essential that the expert that is instructed in your claim is completely independent. Therefore your treating GP or Consultant will not be able to produce a report for the purposes of your claim.A medical expert will typically be asked to comment on the following:
- Any relevant pre-existing conditions;
- - Details of injuries sustained as a result of the accident;
- Details treatment received;
- An assessment of the impact of your injuries and ongoing symptoms upon your daily living;
- Future prognosis.
In cases involving severe, multiple injuries several different experts from varying disciplines are likely to be required to advise. In other cases where there is only one injury, one expert may suffice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)