Public Sector Risk

For Less Police Violence, Train More

Insurers who help pay for improved police training today may save on future claims.
By: | June 1, 2017 • 5 min read

In the emotionally and politically charged climate surrounding police violence, a consensus emerges from the right and the left, from cops, attorneys, academics and the insurance community: Mitigation depends on more and better training for law enforcement.

Advertisement




Every stakeholder — from the cop on the beat through prison management and the insurance industry — has a role in affecting change.

“Sometimes police have to use force, and then bad things happen,” said Greg Champagne, a sheriff in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, and president of the National Sheriff’s Association. “The best risk management is the best training a police force can afford. Insurers can help us provide free training.”

Communities are feeling the financial impact of police training. Bloomberg reported in February 2016 that spending on police training in 23 of the 25 biggest U.S. cities grew 17 percent to $317.9 million in 2015 from 2013.

The cost of not training may be even higher. For example, Chicago residents paid nearly half a billion dollars in settlements over the past decade, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, and spent $84.6 million in fees, settlements and awards in 2013.

Costs fall primarily on taxpayers, since most large cities are self-insured. Many smaller cities belong to self-insured risk pools.

Fewer than five insurers cover public entities nationally, said Scott K. Thomason, vice president, public sector, at Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., but the self-insured cities rely on reinsurers, which have a vested interest in improving risk profiles.

Greg Champagne, president, National Sheriff’s Association

“Civil unrest is not created equal, in likelihood and severity,” said Hart S. Brown, senior vice president, organizational resilience, HUB International. For example, riot-type events explode with high energy and emotion but usually dissipate within 72 hours. Labor unrest may last longer but has less geographical impact.

“Carriers and brokers can conduct real risk assessments of the kind of event that’s likely and its cost to municipalities.” Brown said.

Many experts believe that a disproportionate number of claims are caused by a small number of officers, said John Rappaport, assistant professor of law, University of Chicago School of Law.

Insurers “could be bolder” in urging departments to get rid of the bad apples, he said. While carriers don’t want to be perceived as interfering in personnel matters, he said, “this is an occasion for managing risk.”

Training, Training and More Training

In April, the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers Inc. (NABLEO) conducted a two-day de-escalation training program. The curriculum aims to unpack “implicit bias,” which the Justice Department defines as “the unconscious or subtle associations that individuals make between groups of people and stereotypes about those groups.”

“Our assumptions of who other people are dictate how we treat them,” said Charles P. Wilson, national chairman at NABLEO. “Assumptions create risk.”

Training aims to change the attitudes and behaviors that can erupt into violence. “How does the officer perceive the other person? How is he speaking to him? What kind of words is he using? How does he interpret body language? How does his cultural lens affect what he sees?”

Implicit bias training is part of the reform in some of the consent decrees the Justice Department reached under the Obama Administration with several troubled police departments.

Advertisement




The current attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is seeking a review of the consent decrees, citing concerns about their overuse and potential stigma for the police departments.

The DOJ action is “a disservice to law enforcement and the community,” Wilson said. “Police have to understand what they’re doing wrong so they can stop doing it.”

The Fraternal Order of Police, which vociferously supports Sessions on its website, may disagree.

“Sometimes police have to use force, and then bad things happen.” —Greg Champagne, president, National Sheriff’s Association

Regardless, said Rappaport, if consent decrees were abandoned, affected municipalities could see more violent interactions and lawsuits to follow. Most of these cities are self-insured, so only their excess carriers might be affected.

And if federal funding for de-escalation and other training were withdrawn, would the insurance industry have a role in picking up the tab?

Derek Broaddus, senior vice president, Allied World Insurance

“Absolutely,” Rappaport said. “Carriers can do the calculations: Do we expect to save more on claims and lawsuits than we spend on training? Research suggests they will.”

Police liability insurers — many of which are non-competitive, state-specific municipal risk pools — are an important “bumblebee” in cross-pollinating best practices, he said.

Just as carriers share positive results about telematics devices installed in police cars, revealing location, speed and response times, they also share technology and training success stories.

The need for thorough training runs the entire law enforcement and judicial gamut, said Champagne.

“Use of force, medical care, automobile crashes — those are the liability triggers. Sheriffs run jails, and they and their deputies have to understand the law and procedures in their operations,” he said.

Body Cameras, Pros and Cons

With some reservations, body cameras attached to police officers’ shirts are almost universally hailed by police organizations, insurers, academics and even the ACLU.

Some insurers offer grant funding to municipalities to help finance the equipment, said Derek Broaddus, senior vice president at Allied World Insurance, a specialist primary and excess carrier.

Others offer grant-writing training to help put the funds within smaller municipalities’ reach.

The pros? “Body cameras can raise the level of officers’ responsibility because they know they’re being recorded,” said Thomason. They can also influence the behavior of the person on the other side of the lens.

The cons? At $400 to $1,000 apiece, they’re expensive, said Kenny Smith, risk control manager at OneBeacon.

“And then you have the cost of storage, retrieving images, copying and redaction when someone requests them through the Freedom of Information Act,” he said.

“Cameras alone may be prohibitively expensive for an entire police department,” said Brown, “and storage is expensive, whether on a municipality’s own servers or on the cloud.”

Advertisement




Taser International — now Axon — announced in April a program to equip every U.S. police officer with a free body camera and provide police departments with supporting hardware, software, data storage and training, free for one year. After a year, cameras would cost $399 and use of the company’s Evidence.com platform $15 to $89 per month, per officer.

“The image that appears on the evening news can look awful, but it doesn’t show the run-up to the incident,” Broaddus said. “It doesn’t show the pre-arrest history between the participants, the altercation or instigation.”

“When you don’t have the full scope of context, it creates more risk,” said Thomason.

Video footage can stir up negative public perception, Smith said.

“Once it’s released to the public or the media, it can be very damaging. Police departments need to have their procedural ducks in a row before they venture into this thing.” &

Susannah Levine writes about health care, education and technology. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Insurtech

Kiss Your Annual Renewal Goodbye; On-Demand Insurance Challenges the Traditional Policy

Gig workers' unique insurance needs drive delivery of on-demand coverage.
By: | September 14, 2018 • 6 min read

The gig economy is growing. Nearly six million Americans, or 3.8 percent of the U.S. workforce, now have “contingent” work arrangements, with a further 10.6 million in categories such as independent contractors, on-call workers or temporary help agency staff and for-contract firms, often with well-known names such as Uber, Lyft and Airbnb.

Scott Walchek, founding chairman and CEO, Trōv

The number of Americans owning a drone is also increasing — one recent survey suggested as much as one in 12 of the population — sparking vigorous debate on how regulation should apply to where and when the devices operate.

Add to this other 21st century societal changes, such as consumers’ appetite for other electronic gadgets and the advent of autonomous vehicles. It’s clear that the cover offered by the annually renewable traditional insurance policy is often not fit for purpose. Helped by the sophistication of insurance technology, the response has been an expanding range of ‘on-demand’ covers.

The term ‘on-demand’ is open to various interpretations. For Scott Walchek, founding chairman and CEO of pioneering on-demand insurance platform Trōv, it’s about “giving people agency over the items they own and enabling them to turn on insurance cover whenever they want for whatever they want — often for just a single item.”

Advertisement




“On-demand represents a whole new behavior and attitude towards insurance, which for years has very much been a case of ‘get it and forget it,’ ” said Walchek.

Trōv’s mobile app enables users to insure just a single item, such as a laptop, whenever they wish and to also select the period of cover required. When ready to buy insurance, they then snap a picture of the sales receipt or product code of the item they want covered.

Welcoming Trōv: A New On-Demand Arrival

While Walchek, who set up Trōv in 2012, stressed it’s a technology company and not an insurance company, it has attracted industry giants such as AXA and Munich Re as partners. Trōv began the U.S. roll-out of its on-demand personal property products this summer by launching in Arizona, having already established itself in Australia and the United Kingdom.

“Australia and the UK were great testing grounds, thanks to their single regulatory authorities,” said Walchek. “Trōv is already approved in 45 states, and we expect to complete the process in all by November.

“On-demand products have a particular appeal to millennials who love the idea of having control via their smart devices and have embraced the concept of an unbundling of experiences: 75 percent of our users are in the 18 to 35 age group.” – Scott Walchek, founding chairman and CEO, Trōv

“On-demand products have a particular appeal to millennials who love the idea of having control via their smart devices and have embraced the concept of an unbundling of experiences: 75 percent of our users are in the 18 to 35 age group,” he added.

“But a mass of tectonic societal shifts is also impacting older generations — on-demand cover fits the new ways in which they work, particularly the ‘untethered’ who aren’t always in the same workplace or using the same device. So we see on-demand going into societal lifestyle changes.”

Wooing Baby Boomers

In addition to its backing for Trōv, across the Atlantic, AXA has partnered with Insurtech start-up By Miles, launching a pay-as-you-go car insurance policy in the UK. The product is promoted as low-cost car insurance for drivers who travel no more than 140 miles per week, or 7,000 miles annually.

“Due to the growing need for these products, companies such as Marmalade — cover for learner drivers — and Cuvva — cover for part-time drivers — have also increased in popularity, and we expect to see more enter the market in the near future,” said AXA UK’s head of telematics, Katy Simpson.

Simpson confirmed that the new products’ initial appeal is to younger motorists, who are more regular users of new technology, while older drivers are warier about sharing too much personal information. However, she expects this to change as on-demand products become more prevalent.

“Looking at mileage-based insurance, such as By Miles specifically, it’s actually older generations who are most likely to save money, as the use of their vehicles tends to decline. Our job is therefore to not only create more customer-centric products but also highlight their benefits to everyone.”

Another Insurtech ready to partner with long-established names is New York-based Slice Labs, which in the UK is working with Legal & General to enter the homeshare insurance market, recently announcing that XL Catlin will use its insurance cloud services platform to create the world’s first on-demand cyber insurance solution.

“For our cyber product, we were looking for a partner on the fintech side, which dovetailed perfectly with what Slice was trying to do,” said John Coletti, head of XL Catlin’s cyber insurance team.

“The premise of selling cyber insurance to small businesses needs a platform such as that provided by Slice — we can get to customers in a discrete, seamless manner, and the partnership offers potential to open up other products.”

Slice Labs’ CEO Tim Attia added: “You can roll up on-demand cover in many different areas, ranging from contract workers to vacation rentals.

“The next leap forward will be provided by the new economy, which will create a range of new risks for on-demand insurance to respond to. McKinsey forecasts that by 2025, ecosystems will account for 30 percent of global premium revenue.

Advertisement




“When you’re a start-up, you can innovate and question long-held assumptions, but you don’t have the scale that an insurer can provide,” said Attia. “Our platform works well in getting new products out to the market and is scalable.”

Slice Labs is now reviewing the emerging markets, which aren’t hampered by “old, outdated infrastructures,” and plans to test the water via a hackathon in southeast Asia.

Collaboration Vs Competition

Insurtech-insurer collaborations suggest that the industry noted the banking sector’s experience, which names the tech disruptors before deciding partnerships, made greater sense commercially.

“It’s an interesting correlation,” said Slice’s managing director for marketing, Emily Kosick.

“I believe the trend worth calling out is that the window for insurers to innovate is much shorter, thanks to the banking sector’s efforts to offer omni-channel banking, incorporating mobile devices and, more recently, intelligent assistants like Alexa for personal banking.

“Banks have bought into the value of these technology partnerships but had the benefit of consumer expectations changing slowly with them. This compares to insurers who are in an ever-increasing on-demand world where the risk is high for laggards to be left behind.”

As with fintechs in banking, Insurtechs initially focused on the retail segment, with 75 percent of business in personal lines and the remainder in the commercial segment.

“Banks have bought into the value of these technology partnerships but had the benefit of consumer expectations changing slowly with them. This compares to insurers who are in an ever-increasing on-demand world where the risk is high for laggards to be left behind.” — Emily Kosick, managing director, marketing, Slice

Those proportions may be set to change, with innovations such as digital commercial insurance brokerage Embroker’s recent launch of the first digital D&O liability insurance policy, designed for venture capital-backed tech start-ups and reinsured by Munich Re.

Embroker said coverage that formerly took weeks to obtain is now available instantly.

“We focus on three main issues in developing new digital business — what is the customer’s pain point, what is the expense ratio and does it lend itself to algorithmic underwriting?” said CEO Matt Miller. “Workers’ compensation is another obvious class of insurance that can benefit from this approach.”

Jason Griswold, co-founder and chief operating officer of Insurtech REIN, highlighted further opportunities: “I’d add a third category to personal and business lines and that’s business-to-business-to-consumer. It’s there we see the biggest opportunities for partnering with major ecosystems generating large numbers of insureds and also big volumes of data.”

For now, insurers are accommodating Insurtech disruption. Will that change?

Advertisement




“Insurtechs have focused on products that regulators can understand easily and for which there is clear existing legislation, with consumer protection and insurer solvency the two issues of paramount importance,” noted Shawn Hanson, litigation partner at law firm Akin Gump.

“In time, we could see the disruptors partner with reinsurers rather than primary carriers. Another possibility is the likes of Amazon, Alphabet, Facebook and Apple, with their massive balance sheets, deciding to link up with a reinsurer,” he said.

“You can imagine one of them finding a good Insurtech and buying it, much as Amazon’s purchase of Whole Foods gave it entry into the retail sector.” &

Graham Buck is a UK-based writer and has contributed to Risk & Insurance® since 1998. He can be reached at riskletters.com.