Risk managers and C-level executives differ in their outlook on risks associated with international expansion, with 43 percent of C-level execs noting that international risks pose a greater threat to their companies than domestic exposures, compared with only 16 percent of risk managers, according to the 2007 Chubb International Risk Survey.

C-level executives–senior managers responsible for a particular activity, who report to top management–and risk managers differed in the types of risks they are most concerned about when it comes to the company's multinational exposures, the survey found.

Twenty-four percent of risk managers cited natural catastrophes–such as hurricanes and earthquakes–as the top threat posed by a company's overseas business operations or the business it conducts abroad, while 24 percent of C-level executives found terrorism to be the top threat.

“The findings illustrate the importance of an emerging trend toward closer collaboration between an organization's risk manager and its most senior executives,” Kathleen Ellis, senior vice president at Chubb & Son and worldwide manager of the Multinational Risk Group for Chubb Commercial Insurance, said in a statement.

“To effectively allocate resources, organizations need a clear, agreed-upon big picture of global risk–one that's built on many perspectives,” she added.

She cautioned organizations that don't take this holistic approach “could find themselves unexpectedly self-insuring losses that occur outside the United States and Canada.”

She added that the ability to identify and successfully address emerging international exposures becomes increasingly critical as companies become more global.

Seventy-six percent of survey respondents indicated that their company is likely to expand operations outside the United States and Canada in 2007, and 86 percent anticipated that revenue from these operations is likely to increase over the next five years.

Respondents planned on growing their businesses through a variety of ways, including the introduction of new products (72 percent), an increase in employee headcount (66 percent), opening a plant or an office (62 percent), and the acquisition of another company (47 percent).

Ms. Ellis recommended that companies adopt enterprise risk management programs to help counteract these threats.

“Corporate executives and risk managers must look at all the risks to their business–domestic and international, and whether they are insurable or not–if they wish to more fully protect their business operations,” she said.

Another finding in the survey was that directors and officers liability is becoming a more significant source of risk outside the United States/Canada.

Again, C-level executives differed in their responses compared to risk managers.

C-level executives (59 percent) noted that employment practices liability is becoming a more significant source of risk outside the United States and Canada, followed by fiduciary liability (58 percent) and directors and officers liability (55 percent).

Risk managers, however, cited D&O liability (55 percent), EPL (43 percent) and fiduciary liability (35 percent).

Evan J. Rosenberg, senior vice president and global specialty lines manager at Chubb & Son in Warren, N.J., found these survey results somewhat surprising.

“When you look at the survey, it was interesting that the directors and officers had more concern with employment-related issues and fiduciary liability issues, which is not what we're seeing,” he told National Underwriter in New Orleans at the Risk and Insurance Management Society annual conference.

“We're seeing an increase in the number of D&O cases–not just companies that list in the U.S., but even locally domiciled companies, public and private. We see in our data that's the much larger exposure, so we were surprised,” he added.

On the fiduciary liability side, he noted, “we find there are a lot of countries that are converting over from state-run plans to private plans, but we haven't seen the litigation or the problems yet.”

Mr. Rosenberg said that in London and the United Kingdom, there is an increase in the frequency of claims, but not in the severity. And outside the U.K., he noted, “we're not seeing a tremendous up-tick in claims. What we think is driving a lot of what we're seeing in the marketplace in the professional lines is the locally admitted D&O policies.”

He explained that there are a few reasons why companies are requesting these policies, such as the fact that “certain jurisdictions are requiring you have admitted paper.”

Another issue is that it's a risk management tool–”They may buy a local [policy] if they have large operations. They want some comfort level.”

The third issue, he said, is that many of these countries want to have local policies.

Mr. Rosenberg noted that because indemnification and the way D&O works is different in every jurisdiction, “they have to solve that as well–that the U.S. policy may be prohibited from paying. That seems to be where most of our discussions are with customers these days–on the D&O side.”

He also noted that there have already been “more than a few significant D&O liability lawsuits in Europe. In addition, as more countries develop their own insurance marketplace, more of them could make D&O insurance compulsory or require the purchase of a locally admitted D&O policy to comply with local admitted laws.”

Special Reports /

C-Level Execs, RMs Diverge On Int'l Risk

Related Stories

Recommended For You