2016 Teddy Awards

Recognizing Excellence

The judges of the 2016 Teddy Awards reflect on what they learned, and on the value of awards programs in the workers' comp space.
By: | November 2, 2016 • 5 min read

This year, our inbox was near to bursting with Teddy Award applications — we could barely keep up. What a fabulous problem to have.


It was gratifying to read about the outstanding efforts happening across the country, across all industries. So many programs rose to the top that it was a challenge to pare them down, let alone select overall winners.

For help in selecting winners, we turned to a panel of experts with many decades of hands-on experience. These leaders know what it takes to develop and maintain a truly excellent injury prevention and workers’ compensation program.

We asked the judges to reflect upon the experience.

112016_01_coverstory_cenicerosRoberto Ceniceros, senior editor, Risk & Insurance®; program chair, National Workers’ Compensation and Disability Management Conference® & Expo

Q: What do you think is the most interesting trend among the Teddy applications this year?

This year’s applicants showed a willingness to apply real creativity to address their toughest comp challenges. That required them to put in the hard work necessary to implement their creative strategies. The trend also shows real bravery because creativity implies they weren’t always borrowing tested ideas as much as they were finding their own path that others can now learn from.

Another trend I saw among them is a growing capacity to engage workers or enlist their help in developing safety strategies and adopting helpful claims management practices. One of this year’s Teddy Award winning companies, for example, enlisted the help of its construction workers to design accommodating return-to-work tasks.


noonanMark Noonan, managing principal, casualty practice, Integro Insurance Brokers

Q: As you evaluated this year’s Teddy Awards finalist applications, what struck you in terms of how much employer safety and workers’ comp programs have evolved since you’ve been in the industry?

Through a combination of employees demanding and assisting in developing safe work environments and procedures; enlightened employers who see the value of skilled healthy workers who provide a higher quality deliverable; the government agencies who provide expert guidance and, when necessary, legal recourse for dangerous exposures; and safe workplace advocates who provide assistance and act as watchdogs, safety is now a primary focus in the workplace.

While costs continue to rise as wages and cost of medical treatment and medication continues an upward trajectory, both frequency and severity are declining, with frequency declining every year except one for the last 20-plus years. Today, even companies that are viewed as having high risk job assignments measure the time between lost-time injuries in weeks or months not hours or days as in the last century.

112016_01_coverstory_amielAnne-Marie Amiel, risk manager, Columbus Consolidated Government, Ga.; 2015 Teddy Award winner

Q: Has learning about other strong safety and workers’ comp programs been of value to you in your quest to continuously improve your own?

Winning a Teddy Award for our program was one of the proudest moments of my life, but the ability to interact with other creative, successful program managers at the conference and thereby gain more ideas for even more improvement was an invaluable long-term benefit.

Being given the opportunity this year to take a look at how other highly successful programs have made a difference in the lives of their employees has been an honor, and the creativity of some of these managers inspires me to go even further in our program. Success is a process, not a destination, and I truly believe that those who are innovative can take creative ideas and build on them within their own organization. None of us own all the good ideas, but the ability to learn from and share with others will result in improvement in all sectors of the workers’ compensation world.

112016_01_coverstory_russoCaryl Russo, senior vice president, Barnabas Health Corporate Care; 2015 Teddy Award Winner

Q: From your perspective, how does recognizing employer programs benefit or enrich the workers’ comp community as a whole?

[Forums like the] Teddy Award provide a tremendous opportunity for sharing creative ideas and innovative programs among a wide range of companies and industries. This level of information exchange has far-reaching implications and benefits, and provides the foundation for other companies to consider implementing similar programs, again shining a spotlight on the area of workers’ compensation. There is a halo effect [as] other companies in the region or in the industry sector [look more closely] at how to achieve similar results and accolades. In essence, when we highlight an individual company’s success, we have the opportunity to elevate the broader workers’ compensation platform.

Most importantly, recognizing employer programs provides the chance to acknowledge the hard work of risk managers and other team members who deal with workers’ compensation on a daily basis and are often unsung heroes within their respective organizations.

112016_01_coverstory_saddyJennifer Saddy, director of workers’ compensation, American Airlines; 2015 Teddy Award winner

Q: What advice would you give to next year’s Teddy Award applicants?

There are a lot of great employers doing a lot of really great proactive things to prevent occupational injuries from occurring and improve the process when injuries do occur.  My recommendation for next year’s Teddy Award applicants is to not only highlight the changes your organization has made but also clearly outline the results that those changes were able to achieve.

I also recommend the applicants illustrate the obstacles and challenges they’ve had to overcome in order to achieve the results. This provides the full picture and better helps to understand not only the issues, the changes, but also how significant those changes may have been to the organization.


Read more about the 2016 Teddy Award winners:

target-150x150Bringing Focus to Broad Challenges: Target brings home a 2016 Teddy Award for serving as an advocate for its workers, pre- and post-injury, across each of its many operations.


hrt-150x150The Road to Success: Accountability and collaboration turned Hampton Roads Transit’s legacy workers’ compensation program into a triumph.


excela-150x150Improve the Well-Being of Every Life: Excela Health changed the way it treated injuries and took a proactive approach to safety, drastically reducing workers’ comp claims and costs.


harder-150x150The Family That’s Safe Together: An unwavering commitment to zero lost time is just one way that Harder Mechanical Contractors protects the lives and livelihoods of its workers.


More coverage of the 2016 Teddy Awards:

Recognizing Excellence: The judges of the 2016 Teddy Awards reflect on what they learned, and on the value of awards programs in the workers’ comp space.

Fit for Duty: 2013 Teddy Winner Miami-Dade County Public Schools is managing comorbid risk factors by getting employees excited about healthy living.


Saving Time and Money: Applying Lean Six Sigma to its workers’ comp processes earned Atlantic Health a Teddy Award Honorable Mention.

Caring for the Caregivers: Adventist Health Central Valley Network is achieving stellar results by targeting its toughest challenges.

Advocating for Injured Workers: By helping employees navigate through the workers’ comp system, Cottage Health decreased lost work days by 80 percent.

A Matter of Trust: St. Luke’s workers’ comp program is built upon relationships and a commitment to care for those who care for patients.

Keeping the Results Flowing: R&I recognizes the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago for a commonsense approach that’s netting continuous improvement.

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Risk Report: Marine

Crewless Ships Raise Questions

Is a remote operator legally a master? New technology confounds old terms.
By: | March 5, 2018 • 6 min read

For many developers, the accelerating development of remote-controlled and autonomous ships represents what could be the dawn of a new era. For underwriters and brokers, however, such vessels could represent the end of thousands of years of maritime law and risk management.

Rod Johnson, director of marine risk management, RSA Global Risk

While crewless vessels have yet to breach commercial service, there are active testing programs. Most brokers and underwriters expect small-scale commercial operations to be feasible in a few years, but that outlook only considers technical feasibility. How such operations will be insured remains unclear.

“I have been giving this a great deal of thought, this sits on my desk every day,” said Rod Johnson, director of marine risk management, RSA Global Risk, a major UK underwriter. Johnson sits on the loss-prevention committee of the International Union of Maritime Insurers.

“The agreed uncertainty that underpins marine insurance is falling away, but we are pretending that it isn’t. The contractual framework is being made less relevant all the time.”

Defining Autonomous Vessels

Two types of crewless vessels are being contemplated. First up is a drone with no one on board but actively controlled by a human at a remote command post on land or even on another vessel.

While some debate whether the controllers of drone aircrafts are pilots or operators, the very real question yet to be addressed is if a vessel controller is legally a “master” under maritime law.


The other type of crewless vessel would be completely autonomous, with the onboard systems making decisions about navigation, weather and operations.

Advocates tout the benefits of larger cargo capacity without crew spaces, including radically different hull designs without decks people can walk on. Doubters note a crew can fix things at sea while a ship cannot.

Rolls-Royce is one of the major proponents and designers. The company tested a remote-controlled tug in Copenhagen in June 2017.

“We think the initial early adopters will be vessels operating on fixed routes within coastal waters under the jurisdiction of flag states,” the company said.

“We expect to see the first autonomous vessel in commercial operation by the end of the decade. Further out, around 2025, we expect autonomous vessels to operate further from shore — perhaps coastal cargo ships. For ocean-going vessels to be autonomous, it will require a change in international regulations, so this will take longer.”

Once autonomous ships are a reality, “the entire current legal framework for maritime law and insurance is done,” said Johnson. “The master has not been replaced; he is just gone. Commodity ships (bulk carriers) would be most amenable to that technology. I’m not overly bothered by fully automated ships, but I am extremely bothered by heavily automated ones.”

He cited two risks specifically: hacking and fire.

“We expect to see the first autonomous vessel in commercial operation by the end of the decade. Further out, around 2025, we expect autonomous vessels to operate further from shore — perhaps coastal cargo ships. For ocean-going vessels to be autonomous, it will require a change in international regulations, so this will take longer.” — Rolls-Royce Holdings study

Andrew Kinsey, senior marine risk consultant, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty, asked an even more existential question: “From an insurance standpoint, are we even still talking about a vessel as it is under law? Starting with the legal framework, the duty of a flag state is ‘manning of ships.’ What about the duty to render assistance? There cannot be insurance coverage of an illegal contract.”

Several sources noted that the technological development of crewless ships, while impressive, seems to be a solution in search of a problem. There is no known need in the market; no shippers, operators, owners or mariners advocate that crewless ships will solve their problems.

Kinsey takes umbrage at the suggestion that promotional material on crewless vessels cherry picks his company’s data, which found 75 percent to 90 percent of marine losses are caused by human error.


“Removing the humans from the vessels does not eliminate the human error. It just moves the human error from the helm to the coder. The reports on development by the companies with a vested interest [in crewless vessels] tend to read a lot like advertisements. The pressure for this is not coming from the end users.”

To be sure, Kinsey is a proponent of automation and technology when applied prudently, believing automation can make strides in areas of the supply chains. Much of the talk about automation is trying to bury the serious shortage of qualified crews. It also overshadows the very real potential for blockchain technology to overhaul the backend of marine insurance.

As a marine surveyor, Kinsey said he can go down to the wharf, inspect cranes, vessels and securements, and supervise loading and unloading — but he can’t inspect computer code or cyber security.

New Times, New Risks

In all fairness, insurance language has changed since the 17th century, especially as technology races ahead in the 21st.

“If you read any hull form, it’s practically Shakespearean,” said Stephen J. Harris, senior vice president of marine protection UK, Marsh. “The language is no longer fit for purpose. Our concern specifically to this topic is that the antiquated language talks about crew being on board. If they are not on board, do they still legally count as crew?”

Harris further questioned, “Under hull insurance, and provided that the ship owner has acted diligently, cover is extended to negligence of the master or crew. Does that still apply if the captain is not on board but sitting at a desk in an office?”

Andrew Kinsey, senior marine risk consultant, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty

Several sources noted that a few international organizations, notably the Comite Maritime International and the International Maritime Organization, “have been very active in asking the legal profession around the world about their thoughts. The interpretations vary greatly. The legal complications of crewless vessels are actually more complicated than the technology.”

For example, if the operational, insurance and regulatory entities in two countries agree on the voyage of a crewless vessel across the ocean, a mishap or storm could drive the vessel into port or on shore of a third country that does not recognize those agreements.

“What worries insurers is legal uncertainty,” said Harris.

“If an operator did everything fine but a system went down, then most likely the designer would be responsible. But even if a designer explicitly accepted responsibility, what matters would be the flag state’s law in international waters and the local state’s law in territorial waters.


“We see the way ahead for this technology as local and short-sea operations. The law has to catch up with the technology, and it is showing no signs of doing so.”

Thomas M. Boudreau, head of specialty insurance, The Hartford, suggested that remote ferry operations could be the most appropriate use: “They travel fixed routes, all within one country’s waters.”

There could also be environmental and operational benefits from using battery power rather than conventional fuels.

“In terms of underwriting, the burden would shift to the manufacturer and designer of the operating systems,” Boudreau added.

It may just be, he suggested, that crewless ships are merely replacing old risks with new ones. Crews can deal with small repairs, fires or leaks at sea, but small conditions such as those can go unchecked and endanger the whole ship and cargo.

“The cyber risk is also concerning. The vessel may be safe from physical piracy, but what about hacking?” &

Gregory DL Morris is an independent business journalist based in New York with 25 years’ experience in industry, energy, finance and transportation. He can be reached at [email protected]