This is because as certain major themes make an impact across the board the results of one company can appear almost interchangeable with other similar underwriters and sometimes it appears that only the names and exact figures differ.

This reporting season the key phrases to watch out for will be ‘major claims’, ‘first half catastrophes’, ‘soft market conditions’ and ‘North Atlantic hurricane season’.

For those with a firm eye on the bottom line the key expression will likely be either ‘fell to a loss’ or ‘profits down’.

Amongst the early reporters in the London Market were Brit Insurance and The Insurance Insider noted that the company “reported a first-half net profit of £6.8mn, down from £77.5mn in H1 2010, in the firm’s first results posted under new private equity owners Apollo and CVC”.

Things were worse over at Beazley, its $24.2mn half-year loss getting “a mixed reception from analysts… as the company reported a 108 percent combined ratio on major disaster losses of $183mn”, according to The Insurance Insider.

The publication also reported that Hardy – which has yet to post its results – had “increased its loss estimates for the Q1 natural catastrophes after receiving new information from ceding companies”.

And had “bought more reinsurance in preparation for the North Atlantic hurricane season”.

On the bright side for (re)insurers the company also reported that it had achieved rate rises of 4.1% across its portfolio during the renewals that have taken place in 2011, so it looks as if the market cycle may be beginning to turn.

Things in Europe and Bermuda took a similar turn as Business Insurance reported that “ACE Ltd. and RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. had weaker earnings between January and June, and PartnerRe Ltd. announced its losses related to recent events”.

ACE’s earnings may have been more than respectable at $866mn in the first half of the year, but that’s down from $1.43 billion during the same period in 2010.

In fact BI was being kind to RenRe, which had made a Q2 profit of $24.8mn, compared with a profit of $210.2mn last year, but this was overshadowed by a loss of $223.3mn during the first half of this year.

BI reported: “Tornadoes in the U.S. caused RenRe $70.8mn of losses in the second quarter. The company estimated in April that it also lost $328.6mn from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, $197.1mn from the New Zealand earthquake, and $39.6mn from Australian floods.”

PartnerRe’s loss from US tornadoes in April and May are estimated at $89mn in losses while it also increased its previous loss estimate for the New Zealand earthquake to $59mn.

Elsewhere, Arch Capital reported a first-half profit of $111.2mn, down 75.2% from $447.5mn for the first half of 2010.

It will be interesting to see how many more companies follow these patterns and which terms the press use to describe the results as they come in. I may even make myself a bingo card with some of the favourites and play as I read.

But few have been faught with the collective vehemence of the battle against the payment of referral fees by personal injury lawyers in exchange for a case. Since their introduction in 2004, the claimant legal sector has built up a thriving industry on payment of these charges to accident management companies, insurance brokers and insurers. On the basis that when an individual is innocently injured by a negligent third party (rear-end shunt, slip, trip fall etc) they are entitled to compensation from the latter, this has burnt a halo onto the heads of innocents everywhere in the now familiar; “oh you’ve been injured, we can help you” sent by text or advertised on TV.

Because costs are recoverable from the third party at the point of settlement, it’s been worth pursuing claims in the knowledge that liability is rarely questioned. Secondly, with solicitors willing to pay between £600-£1000 per case, the justification for ‘farming’ these injuries and selling them on has been fairly obvious for some time.

However, in recent months and despite its complicity in this marketplace almost all insurance industry trade groups have called for a ban; The Association of British Insurers, British Insurance Brokers Association, the Lloyd’s Market Association; all have said this cannot continue. For example in April, Nick Starling, ABI director of general insurance and health, told Post Magazine: “Enough is enough. Putting the brake on ambulance-chasing lawyers and claims management firms cannot come a moment too soon. Motorists have rightly had enough of paying for excessive legal costs, which add an extra 10% to the cost of motor insurance.

“It cannot be right that for every £1 motor insurers pay out in compensation; an extra 87p is paid out in legal costs.”

However, the legal sector remains steadfastly of the view that access to justice is at stake and these payments are not detrimental to clients. On May 27th, the Legal Services Board dropped plans to force its membership to publish their payment of the fees through their own web sites, whilst promising to ‘shine the light of transparency’ on them to ‘manage their impact’.

Understandably the insurance industry reacted negatively to the news, but in the end cold, hard cash did the talking some days later. on 31st May, stock market analyst Collins Stewart was bullish about the prospects of FTSE 100 darling Admiral Insurance precisely because of the LSB’s protectionist stance. Referral fees are to continue and Admiral will carry on earning a tidy sum from them; a fact that won’t have gone unnoticed by the many pension funds with holdings in the motor insurer.

The insurance industry has secured a number of significant victories in recent months, not least the likelihood that the loser pays business model will be removed in favour of a contingent fees structure for most types of civil litigation. It has also rightly complained that inflation was rising much too quickly within the area of personal injury, which was backed up by the industry’s most recent Bodily Injury Awards Study published in 2007.

Insurers can also take comfort in the fact that claims inflation is expected to rise further but the level of increase may be about to plateau with datamonitor revising its prediction of 2010-14 growth in claims costs down from 5.45 to 3.7% – a more comfortable figure given current levels of inflation around the general economy.

Once all’s been said and done, personal injury claims will remain big business. Those earning money from their persuit will alter business models based on a low cost up front model that promises to generate compensation cheaply and simply. Insurers will just keep having to work hard to pay the genuine claims and bat away the chancers.

This article was written by freelance business journalist and PR consultant Ralph Savage.

This article was written by freelance business journalist and PR consultant Ralph Savage.

The staff of the magazine have produced a special anniversary issue and have gone to town on lists that cover the good, bad and the ugly of the (re)insurance industry between 1981 and 2011.

Needless to say the insurance industry and world in which it operated in were very, very different in 1981 to today.

‘The Biggest Events’, ‘The Most Influential People’ and the magazine’s ’30 Best Covers’ it must be a journalistic trait because I love lists like these (a bit like one of Nick Hornby’s geekier characters). They are good fun to compile and read, but also prompt some healthy debate and retrospection on the events that have shaped the world and the people at the heart of them.

There are the thoughts of industry big hitters such as Hank Greenberg, Bill Berkley, Brian Duperreault and Grahame Chilton on subjects including the lessons of the last 30 years and the rise of the big three brokers.

Meanwhile Garry Booth’s reflections on almost 30 years of reporting on the (re)insurance industry serve to remind us that the media has also changed out of all recognition since 1981. I mean, what’s a typewriter?

So, once again congratulations to Reactions on reaching the big 3-0 and congratulations to the staff there for such an entertaining and interesting issue to mark it with.

By ‘subjects’, I mean of course companies and organisations and the PR people that represent them.

Owing to a pen-mightier-than-sword issue that relationship is publicly a very one way thing, and this is rather nicely illustrated by the amount of traffic involving the #PRFAIL hashtag on twitter.

However, it’s interesting to see the kudos with which corporate power can be bestowed upon an organisation by journalists because of its formidable PR prowess. Insurance Times‘ Saxon East this week wrote his editorial on just such a thing, when he revealed his thinking behind the relative success of rivals The AA and RAC.

Ruminating over the sale of RAC from Aviva, Saxon chose to compliment the AA’s PR strategy and personnel, saying that their content and approach to dealing with journalists is second to none. This, he suggested, might be one of the deciding factors in the AA’s success at a time during which the RAC stumbled along under Aviva’s ownership and was eventually sold for a fraction of its previous value.

It’s an interesting suggestion and certainly not without merit. Let’s see how they get on with new owners. Perhaps they just need a good agency. I can think of one.

So how did the (re)insurance press cover this extraordinary catastrophe?

Reinsurance Magazine was on the cusp of going to press when the quake struck. It still managed to get a striking image of a boat trapped in a whirlpool onto the cover and include some thoughts that this may be the event that finally turns the soft market on the inside.

Others with more time at their disposal have managed to analyse some of the myriad aspects of this disaster.

Business Insurance has been looking at the estimates for the total economic losses caused by the catastrophe, with the help of the cat modelling firms.

BI reports that at present RMS are still hedging their bets and have a spread of $200bn-$300bn on the economic loss while rivals AIR and EQECAT estimate that insured losses are $15-$35bn and $12-$25bn respectively.

This “guessing game” over the exact nature and totality of the losses is discussed in Michael Loney’s comment piece in Reactions.

The article goes on to highlight the uncertainty now afflicting investors, which (re)insurers will take a hit and why it is unlikely that this loss, even taken in conjunction with events in Australasia, will harden global (re)insurance rates.

One reinsurer that definitely will take a hit is Munich Re, as Post reported, the German giant has revealed it expects losses of EUR1.5bn and that means it won’t hit its profit target of EUR2.4bn for 2011.

One area that stands out for its lack of coverage in contrast to that of the mainstream news is the ongoing travails of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactors.

This is because the vast majority of the loss will be retained by the Japanese government, although Post reports that nuclear rates may increase regardless.

Meanwhile The Review highlights the possible impact on ratings and the moderate affect on the Life market.

And The Insurance Insider reveals that Lloyd’s has assigned the event its own loss code, the code 11D, helping the Franchise Board keep track of the size and volume of claims.

The Insider also discusses the knock-on affect the disaster may have on aspects as diverse as the personal accident market, Industry Loss Warranties and catastrophe bonds.

Bermuda-based Lloyd’s insurer Catlin Group’s pretax profits fell 33% to $406 million in 2010, as it suffered from a year of heavy catastrophe losses.

However, another foreign-domiciled Lloyd’s carrier, Beazley, reported pre-tax profits of $250.8mn up from $158.1mn in 2009.

Beazley said the increase was caused, in part, by a one-off foreign exchange gain after the insurer and reinsurer changed its reporting currency to US dollars from pounds sterling, and by releases of prior-year reserves.
And in the US casualty specialist WR Berkley’s full-year net income rose by 45 percent to reach $449mn as the firm bounced back from heavy investment losses in 2009 while HCC “crept down by just 2.5 percent to $345mn in 2010, as the company largely withstood the combined challenges of high industry cat losses, torpid investment returns and falling rates” according to The Insurance Insider.

Despite the myriad consultations and decrees from the Ministry of Justice, one case may have had the power to accelerate Lord Justice Jackson’s civil justice reforms quicker than anyone could have imagined.

January was awash with comment and debate on the implications of the judgement in MGN v United Kingdom (Case No. 39401/04). Legal Week produced an excellent roundup of the media coverage on the issue, which has certainly got tongues wagging over the future of success fees and CFAs.

The matter of access to justice is rarely away from the headlines these days and the issue does find itself the subject of news copy in some odd places. For example, the Mirror seems to be posing its journalists as Raymond Chandler-esque private detectives; it appears they’re keen to lay it on thick with whatever material they can.

January’s news was also replete with discussion about how motor insurers can justify rising premiums amidst a climate in which every other cost for motorists is heading north too. It’s not difficult to understand the reason this was such a hot topic; Parliament’s Transport Select Committee has been hearing presentations from interested parties on the issue so it’s been straight-talking time.

To offer a little context, rates across personal and commercial motor have generally been on the rise for more than a year and understandably many insurers are keen to present ways in which they might conceivably keep premiums down. For example, insurer Swiftcover added its name to proposals by the Association of British Insurers for broader access to the DVLA database, regarded as one of the most effective means of cutting out fraud at point of sale. Another company, Esure, pointed out some salient concerns it has about rather worrying claims inflation statistics that are specific to one postcode synonymous with the motoring world
And finally, returning to the world of social networking, some smart people at personal injury referral network Loyalty Law have launched what on the surface appears to be the country’s first ever Twitter law firm. Obviously there’s a little more behind it but in essence, users can ask simple ‘what if?’ questions which are answered by a panel of law firms.
It would be my hunch that Quora would be a better network for this type of approach, but we’ll have to wait and see if it gains enough traction with everyday users first.

It’s true that 236,100 claims were made in the year 2009-10, the last full year for which figures are available. But 164,000 of these emanated from multiple claims related to equal pay, issues arising from strikes at airlines and so on. But 73,000 claims were withdrawn, 70,600 were conciliated by ACAS and 20,100 were struck out at the first hearing. So getting on for 70% of unfair dismissal claims never go through the tribunal system fully.

Unfair dismissals – which bear the brunt of employers’ ire –  added up to 50,900 claims. Some 12,200 were withdrawn, 22,400 were settled by ACAS, 3,900 were struck out before a full hearing and only 5,200 were successful – ie the Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant.

Employers want the Government to make it more difficult to bring claims to tribunal. This largely applies to claims for unfair dismissal as discrimination claims relate to law based on edicts emanating from the EU and are, therefore, more or less untouchable unless the UK re-asserts its sovereignty and the Lib Dems  become extinct.

The median award for unfair dismissal claims was £4,903 and the average £9,120. This is hardly massively life-changing territory.

Nevertheless, don’t be surprised if the Government pulls some wheeze to keep the BCC and CBI happy – probably raising the threshold for employment rights from one year to two.

As things stand, of course, employers have 11 months or so to judge if an employee is competent and to get rid of him/her if needs be. Would raising the threshold to two years mean they’ll let incompetents soldier on for 23 months?

The Government may also impose a fee for making a claim – but given most claims follow dismissals then the majority of claimants would be unable to pay, so would have to be given what amounts to legal aid.

Employers should be able to manage many situations that lead to unfair dismissal claims by improving their assessment and performance management processes – moaning about the numbers of claims is crying wolf.

I expect the ruling will have set tongues purring at employment law specialists throughout this land of austerity as it will serve not only as more useful case law, but also a flesh and blood example of  the damages that can be won in such cases. If  Selina Scott paved the way, then O’Reilly’s win has turned that path into a tarmaced highway.

But spare a thought for Sky Sports News (SSN) which seems to hire only pretty young blonde totty and wrinkled old white blokes to read its autocues. A channel more out of tune with the times, yet more in tune with its laddish and bloke-ish viewers would be hard to find, well other than BBC Sports on Saturday afternoons.

I fear it’s only a matter of lawyers’ expensive time before SSN falls foul of the diversity industry.

Finally I must declare an interest: I had the honour to kiss the lovely Selina many years ago. It was more than fab, and think  it’s about time SSN offered her an opening – what better way to prove anti-ageist credentials than by having the ever-lovely Ms Scott reporting from one of our great grounds?