The Driverless Future

Autonomous Risk

When self-driving vehicles meet the sharing economy, numerous industries will need to brace for change; insurance among them.
By: | October 1, 2016 • 10 min read

Outside of the rare Google car sighting, autonomous vehicles, or A.V.s, have mostly been the domain of futuristic action movies. That fictional future, though, is now.


A limited number of autonomous Volvo XC90s will be on the road this year. Audi’s self-driving A8 limousine is due out in 2017. Tesla plans to have fully autonomous vehicles available in 2018. Top executives at Ford and GM expect to launch fully autonomous vehicles by 2020. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation said at the 2015 Frankfurt Auto show that he expects driverless cars to be in use all over the world by 2025.

The twist, however, is that by 2025, the dominating force driving sales of those vehicles will most likely be commercial or public fleet operators, rather than private individuals.

VIDEO: Uber driverless takes to the streets in Pittsburgh.

While carmakers have been perfecting all this autonomous technology, the rest of the world was getting cozy with Zipcar, Car2Go, Uber and Lyft. Now those two disruptive concepts are merging, and the result is a seismic shift in the world as we know it.

Because driverless cars eliminate human error and human foibles like road rage and texting while driving, accident rates are expected to decline. Combined with an overall decrease in ownership, some say that will — eventually — cause a drastic upheaval in the auto insurance industry.

“Right now … everybody’s wringing their hands,” said John Lucker, global advanced analytics & modeling market leader with Deloitte Consulting.

John Lucker, global advanced analytics & modeling market leader, Deloitte Consulting

John Lucker, global advanced analytics & modeling market leader, Deloitte Consulting

“Half of all premiums are going to disappear! The industry’s going to blow up! The personal lines market is going to disappear! And we’re saying, ‘Well, time out everybody.’ ”

The likely reality is more nuanced. Deer will still dart into the road in the blink of an eye. Stray softballs and golf balls will still take out windshields. Car theft isn’t going away. And of course, machines can malfunction or be hacked. Insurance will remain as necessary as ever, but coverage needs will shift in a variety of ways.

“There’s going to be a blurring of the distinctions between various types of commercial insurance and personal insurance,” said James Guszcza, U.S. chief data scientist for Deloitte Consulting.

Sorting through it all is going to be incredibly complicated for carriers, as personal ownership slowly gives way to increased commercial ownership, in the form of driverless “Uber armies” or large A.V. fleets. There will also be a long period when non-autonomous, semi-autonomous, and fully autonomous vehicles will all be in the mix to varying degrees.

“Until all of the vehicles on the road are autonomous, how do you mix and match this?” asked Lucker.

“Your car is acting on its own, then it crashes into somebody who’s driving. How do you figure out who’s at fault? And then, is it a software issue? Is it your liability because you [own the car]? Was it the fault of the [human driver]?

“I don’t think that these things are going to go away,” Lucker said. “There’s obviously a blending of commercial auto, personal auto, potentially E&O for software developers, potentially some sort of product liability risk if a sensor didn’t work properly on the autonomous vehicle … there’s a lot of stuff going on here that traditionally has always been assumed to be a simple personal auto coverage.”

“This is a spectrum,” said Guszcza, “and we’re moving along that spectrum.”

How Quick a Shift?

Opinions vary widely on how fast this transformation will come to pass. Looking out to 2025, “you are going to find universally available cheap automotives, but those are probably going to be bought by self-drive fleet-manager-as-a-service type companies,” said Chris Smedley, CEO of Digital Habitats Corp. and longtime technology entrepreneur.

“Most of us are going to pay for transportation on a per-use basis.”

The rise of mobility as a service (MaaS) is taking hold quickly, and human drivers are indeed being pushed out. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick expects the entire Uber fleet to be driverless by 2030. The foundation is already being laid.

“I can’t imagine how many years it’s going to take for there to be mechanisms where police or road construction can be updated in real time to the point where true autonomous vehicles can navigate.” —John Lucker, global advanced analytics & modeling market leader, Deloitte Consulting

In August, the MIT-born company NuTonomy launched a test fleet of six self-driving taxis in a small section of Singapore, with human drivers on board to take over if necessary. Uber and Volvo also announced plans to launch a fleet of 100 self-driving Uber vehicles in Pittsburgh by the end of summer. The goal is to eliminate human drivers altogether — eventually.  Once that happens, Uber’s Kalanick said, its service will be so inexpensive and broadly available as to make personal car ownership obsolete.


Researchers seem to agree. A 2015 Barclay’s report concluded that auto sales will dip by as much as 40 percent within the next 25 years, as traditional ownership gives way to family autonomous vehicles, shared autonomous vehicles, and autonomous vehicle pooling (think Waze Carpool with no drivers). Barclays estimated that one shared, pooled vehicle could do the work now accomplished by 17 vehicles.

But there’s a silver lining for car manufacturers. A January 2016 McKinsey report suggested that the decline in private vehicle sales will be offset by increased sales of commercially and publicly owned shared fleet vehicles. Those vehicles will need to be replaced far more often due to heavy usage. The report concluded that overall global car sales would drop from the current annual growth rate of 3.6 percent to 2 percent by 2030.

The bottom line is that until somebody figures out how to make Star Trek’s transporter beam a reality, cars and trucks will still be the lifeblood of commerce and society. It’s the way we use them that’s about to shift in a variety of ways, and every manner of industry will need to assess how the shift will affect them.

Like falling dominoes setting off chain reactions, the mobility revolution will strike blows across multiple industry sectors.

Impact Across Industries

The beleaguered petroleum industry is in for more pain, because a steadily growing percentage of new autonomous cars will be electric. The taxi industry, already ailing, appears to be doomed.

James Guszcza, U.S. chief data scientist, Deloitte Consulting

James Guszcza, U.S. chief data scientist, Deloitte Consulting

The parking industry will take heavy hits — who needs a parking space when you Uber to work? Even those who do choose to buy their own autonomous cars won’t need to park — they can just send their cars home to wait.

Prevailing wisdom says that accidents will decline sharply as A.V. usage increases, which could send the $62 billion repair industry into a tailspin. Automotive computer repair will move to the fore as collision repair needs shrink.

Car-sharing and ride-hailing services, now the disruptors, will become the disrupted unless they evolve as Uber is already trying to do. The traditional car rental industry will also be forced to adapt or die.

The same changes will drive a new dynamic in public transportation as well. In fact, it’s already begun.

In April, the City of Beverly Hills, Calif., unanimously passed a resolution to develop a public transportation system consisting of driverless municipal shuttles. The idea is spreading. All seven finalists in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 2016 Smart City Challenge submitted proposals that included semi- or fully autonomous vehicles.

Columbus, Ohio, winner of the $50 million challenge, plans a fleet of connected, electric, autonomous shuttles to ferry people around its business district. Other cities’ proposals included plans to shuttle people between transit hubs and airports autonomously, or to have self-driving vehicles handle deliveries and municipal transportation of materials.

For the average business, this shifting dynamic will be a mixed bag. Eliminating drivers will obviously have a significant impact on the cost of transporting or delivering products. However, as new players enter the autonomous on-demand fleet space, trying to grab for market share, choices for business leaders could become cloudy.

“There’s going to be a blurring of the distinctions between various types of commercial insurance and personal insurance.” — James Guszcza, U.S. chief data scientist, Deloitte Consulting

How do you properly vet your vendor? How much do you know about their parts and programming and how safe or reliable their driverless units are? It remains to be seen whether a company could be held responsible if a fleet vendor’s car were to cause life or property damage while delivering its products.

It will likely take decades of litigation to achieve any clarity on these types of liability issues.R10-1-16p28-30_1Driverless6.indd

Deep, Deep Data

The upside for both insurers and insureds is that the newest automotive technologies — and the data they collect — will create transparencies to a degree barely ever imagined before.

The new wave of vehicles will be equipped with ever-more-sophisticated sensors and telematics, enabling an unprecedented degree of precision in adjusting as well as pricing, said Lou Brothers, senior manager, West Monroe Partners.

In the event of a crash, adjusters will simply download both vehicles’ “black box” data and know instantly what happened and why, improving accuracy and eliminating the need for investigations.

“The device knows,” said Brothers.

Lou Brothers, senior manager, West Monroe Partners

Lou Brothers, senior manager, West Monroe Partners

“It knows what it did, it knows what the other driver did, it knows what you did. And if the other car’s a smart car, we know all the components … the friction on the road, the speed, the position of the gas pedal and brake pedal, deceleration patterns … now there’s no question about who’s at fault.”

On-board technology will give underwriters access to more varied and deeper layers of data, potentially enabling them to fine-tune premiums specific to actual usage, said Brothers.

“Lou’s driving on I-78 heading west out of New York through the Holland Tunnel. Say we know that on the entry point on the Holland Tunnel, he has a 2 percent greater chance of a side-by-side collision because of the funneling that happens there. Therefore for that period of time, instead of paying $3.00 for insurance he’s going to pay $3.50 for insurance — just for that 10 minute period.

“We know everything about the car, where it is, how long it’s there for, we know the accident statistics of all of those different areas — you could really drive yourself into a very detailed, nuanced view of this one driver, in this one car, in this one scenario, at this moment.”

Admittedly, said Brothers, that capability is still a long way off. “The amount of computation, the amount of analysis and of thought that would have to be put into those risk models would be insane,” he said.

“We’re talking about … driving down to the statistic of one.”

But when it happens, it presents some very attractive possibilities for the businesses that will be entrusting their products to autonomous on-demand fleets.

If allowed access to the data collected from commercial fleets, companies would be able to make better decisions about the risk level of each provider, and even about the routes traveled by vehicles being used to conduct their business.

It could also drive a conversion to usage-based automotive insurance, giving commercial fleet owners more power to control their premiums and offer more competitive rates to customers.

Imagine a carrier sending a message that said, maybe you should consider these alternate routes because they’re safer. Or maybe suggesting taking a longer route because it’s better paved or lowers the overall risk of the route.

In the end, money talks, said Brothers. If your carrier told you that if you were to leave 10 minutes earlier every day, your premiums would go down $80, chances are good that you’d leave 10 minutes earlier.

“That kind of real-time alert could be a very positive thing that I think people would welcome.”

Infrastructure Lacking

Risk managers trying to map out how the mobility shift will impact their organizations still have some time to get a handle on it. Despite the current race to put autonomous vehicles on the road, some believe the pace of change will be slow because the infrastructure to support a driverless world doesn’t exist, and few are talking about how to create it.


That’s why projects like NuTonomy’s Singapore test and the Uber/Volvo Pittsburgh venture make sense, because they’re constrained to areas that can be mapped precisely.

The trickier problem is that even keeping vehicles to proscribed routes won’t eliminate unknowns, experts said.

“Let’s say a sinkhole gets formed because of a massive rainstorm,” said Lucker. “How are the police going to alert this global GPS repository that Maple Street is now closed, so every single car knows not to turn down Maple Street?

“Worse, what if there’s an obstacle or accident halfway down a road, the cars don’t know that, and a whole string of cars goes down the road and they form a traffic jam. How will the cars sort out how to get out of there?

“There is no mechanism to create the global GPS database repository of changing road conditions and changing obstacles that an autonomous car is going to have to have access to in real time in order for something to be truly autonomous,” Lucker said.

“I can’t imagine how many years it’s going to take for there to be mechanisms where police or road construction can be updated in real time to the point where true autonomous vehicles can navigate.” &

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

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Employment Practices


Sexual harassment is a growing concern for corporate America. Risk managers can pave the way to top-down culture change.
By: | March 5, 2018 • 12 min read

The #MeToo and #TimesUp movements opened up Pandora’s Box, launching countless public scandals and accusations. The stories that continue to emerge paint an unflattering picture of corporate America and the culture of sexual harassment that has permeated it for decades.


“The clock has run out on sexual assault, harassment and inequality in the workplace. It’s time to do something about it,” reads the official tagline of Time’s Up, one of the most vocal groups demanding change.

The GoFundMe campaign that supports the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund raised more than $16.7 million in less than a month, making it the most successful GoFundMe initiative on record.

Funds will be used to help victims of sexual harassment and assault bring legal action against harassers, as well as provide public relations consultation to manage any media attention such suits might attract.

The problem was never really a secret.

In surveys conducted since 1980 by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 40 percent of women and 15 percent of men consistently reported being sexually harassed at work.

In a sweeping meta-analysis of 25 years’ worth of research data, published in “Personnel Psychology,” an average of 25 percent of women reported experiencing sexual harassment at work. When respondents were given clear definitions of harassing behavior, that figure shot up to 60 percent.

The current climate is just now pushing awareness to the forefront. It was reported last November that law firms in the nation’s capital are seeing a spike in inquiries about sexual harassment cases.

Laura Coppola, regional head of commercial management liability in North America, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty

In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) website is seeing visits to its harassment web page double.

There’s no question the costs to businesses can be staggering. Twenty-First Century Fox reportedly incurred $50 million in costs tied to the settlement of sexual harassment and discrimination allegations in its Fox News division, as well as a $90 million settlement of shareholder claims arising from sexual harassment scandals.

In June, the company disclosed in a regulatory filing that it had $224 million in costs during the fiscal year related to “management and employee transitions and restructuring” at business units, including the group that houses Fox News.

If time is indeed up, it won’t just impact Hollywood, Silicon Valley or Capitol Hill. It will impact every workplace, in every industry.

“It affects everybody,” said Marie-France Gelot, senior vice president and insurance & claims counsel for Lockton’s Northeast Claims Advisory Group.

“I think anybody in corporate America — at some point — has seen it or been aware of it or been around it.”

“This particular phenomenon is certainly at a much wider scope than we’ve seen in the last decade or so,” said Laura Coppola, regional head of commercial management liability in North America, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty.

“This is going to touch many industries, many segments, and many people.”

Employers are beginning to wonder if their workplace could be next.

“I think if you’d been asking [insureds] a year ago, ‘Are you interested in hearing about sexual harassment prevention?’ I think the answer would have been, ‘No, we’re good, we’ve got it,’ ” said Bob Graham, vice president, HUB International Limited.

“But I think now everyone’s saying ‘Sure, yes, we’d like to hear something.’ ”

Leading the Conversation

As American workplaces come under increasing scrutiny, the time is ripe for a large-scale pivot in the way employers manage risks related to sexual harassment.

The co-chairs of the EEOC’s select task force on the study of harassment in the workplace expressed it aptly in 2016:

“With legal liability long ago established, with reputational harm from harassment well known, with an entire cottage industry of workplace compliance and training adopted and encouraged for 30 years, why does so much harassment persist and take place in so many of our workplaces? And, most important of all, what can be done to prevent it? After 30 years — is there something we’ve been missing?”

Experts in the management liability field unanimously told Risk & Insurance® these issues should be elevated to the board level and the C-suite.

“Just as cyber liability shifted rapidly from an IT discussion to a board level discussion, so too will the harassment and discrimination discussion go beyond HR and be elevated to the highest levels,” said Coppola. It will become a corporate-wide, enterprise-wide conversation.

“It’s going to take some time to get to that board level, but it’s going to have to happen,” said Paul King, national practice leader, management and professional services, USI Insurance Services.

“Risk management and HR cannot go down parallel paths, not understanding one another. Not anymore. There’s too much at stake.” — Paul King, national practice leader, management and professional services, USI Insurance Services

Risk managers, said Kelly Thoerig, U.S. employment practices liability coverage leader, Marsh, are well suited to lead this conversation, which means actively partnering with human resources, the legal department, the general counsel’s office and outside counsel.


“Just like the quarterback depends on the offensive line, on receivers, on the running backs, it’s not a one-man show,” said King. “This can’t be the risk manager operating in a vacuum; they have to be liaising with multiple parts of the organization.”

Added King, “Risk management and HR cannot go down parallel paths, not understanding one another. Not anymore. There’s too much at stake.”

Connecting with outside counsel can also be of great benefit to risk managers, said Coppola.

“[They can] provide a very independent objective view of what they see in the overall market and how their knowledge of the individual client’s best practices can be improved and enhanced to ensure that they are protecting employees and the organization.”

Brokers and carriers also may be able to offer insights and services. Unfortunately, that piece is often lost because risk management and HR are siloed.

“The [knowledge of the] services that come with the insurance policy end up with the policy — in a drawer in the risk manager’s office,” said Tom Hams, employment practice liability insurance leader, Aon.

“HR doesn’t know that they exist. Even if they’re just online blogs or something like that, they could be more meaningful to the HR department than they are to risk management.

“So it’s important to make sure that companies are aware they’ve got those tools and — more importantly — to share them internally.”

Expediting Cultural Change

The X factor that underpins every aspect of these efforts is culture, experts agreed.

“It’s not so much ‘does the company have best-in-class policies and procedures in place;’ I think many of them do. I think that a significant change needed is doing a full overhaul of corporate culture, and that’s no small feat,” said Gelot.

Paul King, national practice leader, management and professional services, USI Insurance Services

True culture change can only come from the top level. But that isn’t likely to happen unless everyone at the top understands what the scope of the exposure could be if it’s not addressed appropriately on the front end. And for that, money talks, said Thoerig, who will be presenting on the topic at RIMS 2018 in San Antonio.

“Nothing is more instructive than real tangible claims examples and settlement amounts. Arm yourself with … recent, relevant claims examples specific to the industry and the jurisdictions the company operates in.”

In addition, said King, HR and legal should be regularly feeding claims information to risk managers to share at quarterly meetings of the board and give specific updates around these issues.

Armed with that level of intelligence, top brass can set the goals that will drive all anti-harassment efforts, said experts, putting an emphasis on identifying and correcting behavior that could potentially expose a company to liability.

Better Training and Reporting 

The best anti-harassment programs are multilayered, said Hams, with each facet carefully tailored to suit the employee population, the industry and the organization’s goals. A clearly defined policy is essential, stating that harassment will not be tolerated and neither will retaliation against those who report it.

The policy should be clear that employees are expected to report harassment or unacceptable behavior. Hams said he’s seen companies go so far as to state employees who don’t speak up are in violation of the policy.

“At least it should give them pause to stop and think about what they might have seen before they click the button or sign the document,” he said.

Companies should consider how uncomfortable employees may be about speaking up. An open-door policy is a start.

But there should also be multiple reporting points throughout the organization, said Hams, and an anonymous hotline for those reluctant to bring the matter up with anyone in their chain of command, and a multilingual hotline as well.

An effective training plan will have multiple moving parts and should touch every level of the organization from the executive suite to managers and supervisors to the rank and file. Comprehensive training is especially critical for the managers and supervisors who might receive or investigate complaints.

Many large employers already have training programs that can be considered best-in-class. Small to midsized employers, however, may still be using the cookie-cutter compliance-centric training that has dominated the field for decades.

The goal of this training is to hit all the bases related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, ticking off a list of acts or speech that would be considered illegal and affirming the company will not tolerate illegal behavior.

Overwhelmingly though, this type of training misses the mark. Studies have shown that this one-size-fits-all training is ineffective, especially when it’s a rote check-the-box exercise. Employees get the message their employer doesn’t take the subject too seriously.

Worse, it can even aggravate tensions, creating more discriminatory behavior from men who avoid working with women just to eliminate the chance of being accused of anything.

One study even found that men were more likely to place blame on the victim of sexual abuse after they’d received that type of anti-harassment training.

Even at best, compliance-centric training will still fail, because it only addresses behaviors that violate the law. But there is a broad array of behavior that — while not quite illegal — shouldn’t be tolerated.

When this kind of activity is allowed to flourish unchecked, the environment becomes increasingly toxic for those on the receiving end. It also tells employees that the company will tolerate harassment as long as it’s not overly egregious. In that case, it’s just a matter of time before the company is faced with a serious claim.

“Nothing is more instructive than real tangible claims examples and settlement amounts. Arm yourself with … recent, relevant claims examples specific to the industry and the jurisdictions the company operates in.” — Kelly Thoerig, U.S. employment practices liability coverage leader, Marsh

In its 2016 report, the EEOC’s harassment task force recommended changing tactics, exploring alternative training models such as respect-based civility training — what some call professionalism training.


The theory is “if you train them to act in a professional manner, these things tend not to happen at all,” said Hams.

The EEOC also suggested bystander intervention training, which is designed to empower employees to intervene when they witness harassing behavior.

Experts agreed whatever training programs or modules a company chooses, it’s important the training material reflect the workforce and be continuous and regularly refreshed.

A certification scheme also should be put in place to ensure the training is hitting the mark. While the law does not yet require companies to prove the effectiveness of their programs, some suggest it’s only a matter of time before the courts catch up to the problem.

What’s more, said Coppola, it’s simply the right thing to do for companies that want to confirm they’ve created a culture where all employees can expect to be treated professionally.

Zero Tolerance

Gelot and others believe a zero-tolerance policy should be a key component of an effective anti-harassment program.

“There are many companies that have Harvey Weinsteins and Matt Lauers and Kevin Spaceys working in their midst and those people are tolerated. Employees know about them — it’s not a secret.”

Bob Graham, vice president, HUB International Limited

Particularly when the harasser is a high-level executive, companies may wrestle with the decision to look the other way or lose a key rainmaker. In a zero-tolerance environment — one that starts at the top — the decision would be clear.

“What we saw with Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose — they were terminated immediately as the accusations came out. That’s zero tolerance. That’s sending a message to all of the employees within the company that this is completely unacceptable, we won’t tolerate it, and [it] clearly sends a message to the public at large.”

Employers should promote a workplace culture where all forms of harassment and discrimination are unacceptable and reportable, said Gelot. That’s the only way to take the fear and the stigma out of reporting.

That said, the EEOC offers a word of caution on zero-tolerance policies applied militantly without regard for common sense. Employers should hash out the specifics of which acts merit immediate termination versus a warning.

Overzealous application of the zero-tolerance doctrine can backfire if an employee fears her coworker’s children will go hungry if she reports his lewd or sexist jokes.

Creating a Dialogue

As with managing any other exposure that touches everyone, robust sharing of ideas and best practices has the power to improve the risk profile of entire industry sectors.

Facebook raised eyebrows in December, making public its sexual harassment policy in full.

“I hope in sharing it we will start a discussion, both to help smaller companies thinking about this for the first time, and to improve our own practices by learning from other companies,” wrote Lori Goler, Facebook’s global VP of people, about the company’s bold move.


That level of disclosure is making some risk professionals uncomfortable. But others acknowledge the wisdom of it.

“Any time you can share best practices that’s probably a great idea, because no one has all the answers … or at least not all the right answers,” said Graham.

“There’s a reason they did that, and I think it’s for all the right, positive reasons. They want to drive the momentum that is going to reduce or even eliminate what we have seen in corporate America over the last 50-plus years. They want to lead by example, they want to be the model and rightly so,” added Coppola.

“I think we are at a perfect time in our economic environment that allows the evolution of equality in our workplace.”

Part of that should involve making the workplace more egalitarian, said Gelot, and figuring out “how to make female employees not feel ostracized by a ‘boys’ club’ atmosphere, and actively championing the ascension of women into senior rolls.”

“We can’t focus on the past,” said Coppola. “But we can work very hard collectively as a community, and within the insurance industry specifically, to move forward.” &

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