RSCH presentation

Editor's Notes

• #9: Phenomenon The Phenomenon stage commences with the creation/introduction/expansion of products/services/processes that creates a possible change in exposure. It continues until all the exposure from the product/service/process is abated.  Damage Emergence The Damage Emergence stage commences with the observation of damages to a person, property, or reputation which are believed to be linked to a Phenomenon. Damage Emergence is the second stage to occur in the path chronologically, however dependent on the nature of the damage, it is not always the second stage to be identified. This is particularly problematic when the damage results in latent Bodily Injury Claims.  Competent Signals Competent Signals are theoretical or empirical doubts of the correlation between Phenomenon and Damage. These signals may be sent by individual competent observers or through scientific studies. At this stage there is generally no concrete proof of a clear “causal” link to the phenomenon; however due to the concern of a possible link, this is the stage where the actions taken to mitigate exposure will be most effective.  Interest Group Action Interest Groups, which the project team defined as a group of persons having a common identified interest that often provides a basis for action, can include lobbyists, media, consumer groups, Non-Governmental Organizations, political interest groups, attorney groups, etc.  At this stage in the path, an increased amount of activity by one or more of these groups can be seen and often results in an increase in public concern. Again, this stage does not necessarily include scientific proof of an increase in exposure, but it is an opportunity for Swiss Re to examine and quantify exposure to potential losses from the identified phenomenon.  In some cases, this stage may occur prior to real damage occurring due to a perceived fear of future damage. A recent example of this is the high level of media interest in Carbon Nanotubes, which can be used in complex engineering structures or everyday items such clothes. They have become an item of concern due to being likened in shape to Asbestos.  Causal Link Causal link is the establishment of a clear cause and effect relationship between the phenomenon and damage emergence. This may be based on professional opinion or scientific study, but at this stage the Causal Link is not legally validated. Despite this, the establishment of a clear causal link is likely to clear the way for valid claims in the Legal Action for Compensation stage.  Regulation Regulation is the governmental intervention on the acknowledgement of the potential risks of a Phenomenon. Governments usually act upon either the Proportional Principle or the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk. The Proportional Principle is a way of applying the Precautionary Principle, which states that the benefit of an action or policy must be weighed against the potential risks. It is important to distinguish which principle the government is using when they intervene on a Phenomenon to understand if the potential exposure is great enough to cause a significant number of claims.  Legal Action for Compensation Legal action for compensation is the emergence of litigation based on alleged damage caused by the phenomenon. The court must be persuaded to take the view that a sufficiently strong Causal Link has been established in order to succeed in a Legal Action for Compensation. The burden of proof and the use of class action lawsuits as a method to receive compensation for the damages caused by the phenomenon varies significantly by country, however the Emerging Risks that were studied indicated that the United States has seen the largest amounts of compensation awards paid as a result of legal actions. The United States (due mainly to the prevalence of jury trials) also appears to have a more flexible approach to the standards required to prove causal links.  
• #12: BPA Especially in the US, claims for a variety of adverse health effects, ranging from cancer to reproductive or developmental abnormalities and from mental illness to obesity, have been based on the exposure to products containing endocrine disruptors. Most of this litigation is focused either on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) or, more recently, on bisphenol-A (BPA). While some of the PCB-lawsuits led to high settlements, all, like the aforementioned BPA-claims, involve numerous legal controversies. Among them are causation aspects (in regard to medical, general and specific causation) and the evidence standards applicable for scientific experts in court. As far as plaintiffs did not suffer any personal injury, as in most consumer fraud lawsuits, establishing legal standing was difficult. Atrazine Atrazine is seen as an EDC. Since 2004 it is a subject of litigation on both the federal and state levels of US courts. The plaintiffs claim that exposure to atrazine at any level is harmful to human health. The lawsuits seek class-action remedies, financial penalties and payment for water filtration based on their water being harmful to human health. A recent settlement awarded 105 million USD for the upgrade of water-treatment facilities. Corexit In 2010, Corexit was used in large quantities in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The first analysis of the 57 chemicals found in Corexit formulas 9500 and 9527 showed that the dispersant could contain cancer-causing agents, hazardous toxins and endocrine disrupting chemicals. Part of the massive multidistrict litigation for the oil spill involves claims by those who have allegedly suffered injuries from exposure to Corexit. The defendants are BP, Transocean, Halliburton, Cameron International, Nalco – the manufacturer of the dispersant Corexit – and numerous others.