RISK MATTERS
A QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER FROM THE ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
NOVEMBER 2014
HSE PROMOTES FOCUS ON OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is promoting a campaign to give increased focus to the burden that
occupational disease places on workers, industry and the UK economy.
Occupational disease is a big problem. For some workers it can result in them experiencing life altering, and in some cases,
premature life-ending illness.
In 2011/12 there were an estimated 1.1 million
working people suffering from a work-related illness,
with around 450,000 new cases of occupational related
ill health and a further estimated 12,000 deaths each
year caused by past exposures to harmful substances
at work.
Traditionally, health issues in the workplace have been, and still
are, much harder to address than safety issues because cause and
effect are often not clearly linked.
While some cases of ill health are clearly related to work
activity, for others the cause may be less clear. Many serious
occupational diseases also have a long period of ‘latency’, some
up to 30 years, between exposure and development of ill health
and/or disease, making the links even more difficult to establish.
This also means that after recognising the problem and making
changes in working practices to reduce exposure there may be
a long delay before a reduction in the causes of ill health and
death are seen.
However, where the link is established and exposure can
be measured, interventions and activities aimed at raising
awareness and creating behavioural change can work to
reduce exposures and prevent ill health and disease.
The HSE want to build on the work already being undertaken
in the public, private and third sector organisations, by
encouraging the promotion and exchange of ideas and the
generation of novel initiatives through web pages and the
occupational disease community site.
The focus will be on two key priority areas:
• Respiratory diseases
• Occupational cancer
For further information on the HSE initiatives on occupational
health and on the two priority areas visit:- www.hse.gov.uk/
aboutus/occupational-disease/
NOVEMBER 2014
RISK MATTERS
HSE CRITICISED OVER CONTROL OF SILICA EXPOSURE
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has been accused of leaving workers at double jeopardy from cancer-causing,
lung scarring silica. A report in the workers’ safety magazine Hazards, criticises the HSE for resisting a union-backed
call for it to halve the current exposure limit for common work place dues. The report goes on to say that the
government-imposed, hand-off HSE enforcement policy combined with swinging resource cuts mean even the
current “deadly” standard is not being enforced effectively.
Most of the highest risk industries for silica exposure – brick,
cement, ceramics, concrete products, glass, mineral industries
and quarries - are no longer subject to any unannounced
inspections. Figures obtained by Hazards on the outcome
of this summer’s HSE inspection blitz on the construction
industry (one of a short list of industries still subject to
preventive HSE oversight), found silica exposure was the
runaway top health risk identified, topping manual handling,
noise, vibration, asbestos and other hazardous exposures.
The report cites the US safety watchdog OSHA which, putting
its case for a halving of its 0.1mg/m³ standard – a standard it
shares with the UK – reported that at the current standard, for
lung cancer “the excess lifetime risk to workers exposed over a
working life is between 13 and 60 deaths per 1,000 workers.”
Ice & Snow - To Grit or Not to Grit?
As winter approaches, cold snaps undoubtedly concentrate the
minds of companies and individuals on whether they should clear
snow from paths or try to ensure that ice doesn’t form on walkways
and access routes. Clearing of ice and snow is a subject that
generates much debate. In the past some companies and individuals
have taken the decision that they should not clear snow or treat
potentially icy paths because it might “make them liable”.
Whatever the actual circumstances companies will be liable if they
do nothing. If someone slips and injures themselves on an untreated
path on your premises you will find it difficult to defend against
claims that you acted negligently. Making attempts to clear snow
and ice is common sense and is only likely to incur a liability
if you do it in a slapdash and ineffective manner.
All companies should address this issue as part of their risk
assessment process. A gritting plan should be compiled for the
site, identifying key/priority pathways and vehicle routes within the
premises and using for example, a traffic light colour coding system,
red for high footfall and/or vehicle routes presenting the highest
risk potential designated to be treated first, with lesser used routes
coloured in amber then green. A record of grit spreading should
also be maintained. The gritting plan should provide valuable
evidence in the defence of a liability claim.
The most common method used to de-ice roadways, pathways
and floors is gritting as it is relatively cheap, quick to apply
and easy to spread. Rock salt (plain and treated) is the most
commonly used ‘grit’. It is the substance used on public roads
by the highways authority.
Bags of rock salt can be purchased from most large Builders
Merchants. Salt can stop ice forming and cause existing ice
or snow to melt. It is most effective when it is ground down,
but this will take far longer on pedestrian areas than on roads.
Gritting should be carried out when frost, ice or snow is forecast
or when walkways are likely to be damp or wet and the floor
Silicosis is a condition associated with an increased risk of lung
cancer, with HSE estimating the annual death count at several
hundred and possibly up to 1,000. Silicosis and silica-related
lung cancer are now being recognised by the government as
‘prescribed industrial diseases.’
To read more of the article go to http://www.hazards.org/dust/
lineinthesand.htm
For information on dust and controlling dust in construction
refer to the HSE’s Construction Information Sheet that can be
found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis36.pdf
temperatures are at, or below freezing. The best times are early
evening before the frost settles and/or early morning before
employees arrive. Salt doesn’t work instantly; it needs sufficient
time to dissolve into the moisture on the floor. If you grit when it
is raining heavily the salt will be washed away, causing a problem if
the rain then turns to snow. Compacted snow, which turns to ice, is
difficult to treat effectively with grit. Be aware that ‘dawn frost’ can
occur on dry surfaces, when early morning dew forms and freezes
on impact with the cold surface. It can be difficult to predict when
or where this condition will occur.
So, if bad weather is expected:
• Use a gritting plan to identify places that might become unsafe
due to ice or snow.
• Identify a responsible person e.g. the caretaker, security personnel
or the first person to arrive at the premises. Make them responsible
for treating icy areas and clearing snow (making sure of course
that they are physically fit and capable of doing so).
• Have in place a procedure so that the responsible person(s)
can obtain information about expected weather. Subscribe
them to a warning system, or simply get them to listen to
the weather forecast.
• Provide the responsible person(s) with guidance on what
precautions to take e.g. which paths to clear, to clear
snow before applying rock salt etc.
• Provide the responsible person(s) with advance warning of when
they might need to take precautions e.g. obtain weather forecasts.
• Ensure that you have proper equipment available e.g. snow
shovels and brooms and an adequate supply of suitable materials
e.g. rock salt, grit or sand.
Advice on reducing potential for slips in and around the
workplace can be found at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/slips/faq.htm
Advice on winter safety can also be found at:
http://www.rospa.com/wintersafety
NOVEMBER 2014
RISK MATTERS
New Legislation on Acetylene
Acetylene gas not only poses a risk of explosion or fire when ignited, but when it is exposed
to heat it can decompose into its constituent elements (carbon and hydrogen) and initiate a
chemical chain reaction that ultimately leads to an explosion.
The HSE does not consider that existing legislation addressed this risk and The Acetylene
Safety (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2014 (‘ASE 2014’) were introduced
on the 1st of October 2014.
For the majority of applications (welding and the like) they impose:
• The requirement for a flame arrestor to be fitted
• That only trained personnel should use or modify such equipment
• That a suitable means of handling is employed
• Colour identification of acetylene cylinders.
There is also reference to licensing and more sophisticated system safeguards.
Early indications of the chemical decomposition of acetylene following exposure to
a flame are that the cylinder warms up or vibrates, leading to an explosion, often in
some cases hours after the initial exposure. In such an event the area should be cleared
of personnel to a distance of around 200 metres, the Fire and Rescue Service should
be called and no attempts to move or de-pressurise the cylinder should be made.
Finally, the misidentification of cylinders in an emergency situation can increase the risks of
injury, particularly to fire fighters. For this reason, cylinders filled with compressed acetylene
gas must be coloured ‘Maroon’ (RAL 3007) on both the shoulder and body of the cylinder.
If the colour of the cylinder is different or has become obscured for some reason (e.g. paint
overspray, abrasion, corrosion) it will be unlawful for you to use it and you should contact
your supplier.
Industry and HSE Guidance can be found at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/fireandexplosion/acetylene.htm
New Regulations on Explosives
The new Explosives Regulations 2014 (ER 2014) came into force on 1 October 2014.
The HSE has worked with stakeholders since 2010 to review existing health and safety related explosives legislation. One of the key aims of
the review was to consolidate, modernise, and, where practicable, simplify the legislative arrangements.
ER 2014 consolidates and therefore revokes a number of existing explosives regulations. It brings together the requirements of health and
safety related explosives legislation into a framework based around common topics including authorisation, safety, security and placing on
the market. As a result of the consolidation the Approved Code of Practice to the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005
(L139) has been withdrawn.
Guidance relating to the security of explosives (HSE Circular 1/2005), and guidance on the placing of civil use explosives on the market
(L66) have also been withdrawn.
The main changes to the regulatory framework include:
• merging registrations into the licensing system
• allowing local authorities to issue licences up to 5 years,
aligning them with equivalent HSE/police-issued licences
• extending licensing to address storage of ammonium nitrate
blasting intermediate (ANBI)
• exceptions for keeping higher hazard and desensitised
explosives without a licence have been updated
• tables of separation distances have been restructured to
better allow for sites with more than one store; the tables
have also been revised to cover quantities of explosives
greater than 2,000kg
• a revised list of explosives that can be acquired or acquired
and kept without an explosives certificate from the police
• the repeal of the Fireworks Act 1951, as its remaining
provisions have been superseded by the Pyrotechnic
(Safety) Regulations 2010
The regulations are supported by a suite of overarching
and subsector guidance.
Further information on the Regulations can be found
at http://www.hse.gov.uk/explosives/
NOVEMBER 2014
RISK MATTERS
HSE LAUNCHES NEW ASBESTOS CAMPAIGN AIMED AT TRADESPEOPLE
1.3 million tradespeople at risk from
dangers of asbestos
Tradespeople, including construction workers, carpenters and
painters and decorators, could come into contact with deadly
asbestos on average more than 100 times a year1 according to a new
survey commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)2. The survey revealed that, as well as illustrating how often
tradespeople can be exposed to asbestos, there are some common
myths believed by those at risk, with 1 in seven (14 per cent)
believing that drinking a glass of water will help protect them from
the deadly dust and one in four (27 per cent) thinking that opening
a window will help to keep them safe.
1, 2
http://press.hse.gov.uk/2014/1-3-million-tradespeople-at-risk-from-dangers-of-asbestos/
Only a third (30 per cent) of those asked, were able to identify all
the correct measures for safe asbestos working, whilst more than
half (57 per cent) made at least one potentially lethal mistake in
trying to identify how to stay safe. The HSE indicates that 20 tradespeople, on average, die every week
from asbestos related diseases.
In order to encourage tradespeople to think about asbestos on every
job so they are prepared to deal with the danger, HSE has launched
a new safety campaign.
A key feature of the campaign is the creation of a new web app for
phones, tablets and laptops that helps tradespeople easily identify
where they could come into contact with the deadly material as they
go about their day-to-day work and gives them tailored help on how
to deal with the risks.
Mark Harper, Minister responsible for Health and Safety, said:
Philip White, HSE’s Chief Inspector for Construction, said:
“The number dying every year from asbestos related-diseases
is unacceptably high. Despite being banned in the
construction industry, asbestos exposure remains a very
serious risk to tradespeople. This safety campaign is about
highlighting the risks and easy measures people can take to
protect themselves. We hope the safety kits and the web app
will encourage people to be aware of the risks, think twice,
and take precautions to stay safe.”
“Asbestos is still a very real danger and the survey findings
suggest that the people who come into contact with it
regularly often don’t know where it could be and worryingly
don’t know how to deal with it correctly, which could put
them in harm’s way. Our new campaign aims to help
tradespeople understand some of the simple steps they can
take to stay safe. Our new web app is designed for use on
a job so workers can easily identify if they are likely to face
danger and can then get straight forward advice to help
them do the job safely.”
To download the web app please visit www.beware-asbestos.info/news For more information on asbestos safety please visit http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos
THIRD EDITION OF HSE GUIDE ON WORKPLACE
TRANSPORT SAFETY PUBLISHED
A guide to workplace transport safety
The HSE guide publication HSG136 third edition was published
in September 2014. This guide provides advice for employers on
what they need to do to comply with the law and reduce risk. It
will also be useful for managers, supervisors, employees and their
safety representatives, as well as contractors, vehicle operators and
other organisations concerned with workplace transport safety.
The new guide is much shorter and more streamlined than the
previous edition and includes advice on your general legal duties
and information on health and safety management. There is also
more specific advice on controlling risks associated with workplace
transport, which has been restructured into three main areas:
• Safe site (design and activity)
• Safe vehicle
• Safe driver
The new edition has been updated to take account of new advice
on workplace transport safety and also to reflect changes to relevant
legislation and associated guidance. There are new sections on
multi-deck vehicles and multi-site deliveries, as well as minor
changes to other sections, such as on weighbridges and sheeting.
It reflects and expands on the HSE leaflet Workplace transport
safety: A brief guide.
Further information on workplace transport safety and for links
to the various resources on workplace transport safety can be
found at www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/
NOVEMBER 2014
RISK MATTERS
Machinery Accidents
The HSE has advised that there are around 40,000 injuries a year caused by machinery related
accidents. Employers should think carefully about how each machine in their operation can be
made safe. The following are a selection of recent prosecutions relating to machinery safety.
In early April 2014, a company based in Hull was prosecuted for an accident involving an agency
worker having his arm crushed in a machine. The injured party received crush injuries to his
gloved hand and arm. The HSE investigation revealed poor standards of guarding which
permitted access to dangerous moving parts of the machine. Whilst the injured party was
working near a rubber and fabric web, his hand was drawn into a running nip. He stopped the
machine with a safety bar and was freed by his colleagues before being taken to hospital. The
HSE investigation revealed that there were no fixed or interlock guards on the machine. Nor were
there any photosensitive devices or pressure mats to prevent access to dangerous moving parts.
Whilst a risk assessment and safe system of work was in place, the employer had not considered
the risk of in-running nips and had provided no guidance on when not to wear gloves. The
business was fined £7,500 under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
At the end of March this year, another business was prosecuted due to an incident when a young
worker broke his arm in a number of places in a machine at a recycling plant. A HSE investigation found that guards were not in place on
the machine and an adequate risk assessment had not been carried out. Following a lunch break the injured party switched on a conveyor
belt, walked through a narrow gap by the machine and caught his arm under a roller. The power was quickly turned off by a colleague but it
took 90 minutes to free him. He needed extensive surgery and a month in hospital. The HSE investigation revealed that an inspection by a
consultant 5 years earlier had highlighted the need for guards on the machine but the company had ignored this advice. The business was fined
£46,000 for breaches of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations 1999.
Employers need to select and install equipment properly, use it carefully and make sure it is maintained to protect the health and safety
of themselves, employees and others who may be affected by the way it is used.
Sensible risk assessment is the key, following manufacturer’s recommendations for use and maintenance, and ensuring employees are trained
and competent. This includes taking reasonable steps to ensure new work equipment complies with the relevant European requirements for
safe design and construction. Employers must not use, or permit the use of, unsafe work equipment. As part of their risk assessment process
employers should think carefully about how each machine can be made safe on their premises.
Nearly all equipment used at work is subject to the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER), which place duties
on employers, the self employed and those who control work equipment.
Further advice on work equipment including machinery safety can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery
SUTTON AND BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS 14.06.13, CARDIFF COUNTY COURT CASE NO: CF04744
The importance of detailed medical examination
in Noise Induced Hearing Loss Claims
In June 2013 there was a court case that is of note in relation to the defence of noise
induced hearing loss claims. The case of Sutton and British Telecommunications involved
a 46 year old BT employee making a claim for noise induced hearing loss. It is alleged that
the claimant was exposed to noise levels in excess of 118dB over a period of approximately
14 years of employment. The defendant accepted that the noise levels were excessive but
did not admit that his employment caused the hearing loss.
Ultimately the court dismissed the claim. A significant reason for this result is that noise
claims depend on the claimant giving an honest account of their symptoms, particularly
relating to tinnitus, a condition forming part of the claim. The claimant played down
the amount of motorcycling he undertook in his early years and this eroded credibility.
The defendant’s medical expert carried out a much more detailed examination compared
to the claimants’ expert. He found that the hearing loss was age related and the tinnitus
and hyperacusis were caused by migraines and stress.
It is therefore important to have a detailed medical examination of the claimant undertaken.
It should be remembered that it can not be assumed that noise exposure has caused hearing
loss and audiometric testing should be undertaken to show a result which can be reported
as clearly showing hearing loss.
NOVEMBER 2014
RISK MATTERS
Recycling firm in court after worker loses arm
An Ayrshire waste recycling firm has been fined for serious safety failings after an agency worker severed his left arm at the shoulder
while clearing a conveyor belt blockage.
Steven Dawson, then aged 28, was working as a line supervisor for Lowmac Alloys Ltd at its premises on the Oldhall West Industrial
Estate in Irvine, when the incident happened on 8 February 2011.
Mr Dawson was separating plastic and paper by hand on the conveyor belt when he was alerted to a problem with the conveyor belt
and noticed a metal container had caught on the edge of the conveyor belt’s pulley. He opened an unsecured hinged guard to access
the blockage, but when he attempted to remove the container his left hand and arm came into contact with the moving belt and the
bottom of the pulley – resulting in his arm being severed at the shoulder.
Mr Dawson still suffers from considerable pain and has been unable to return to work.
Lowmac Alloys was prosecuted after a Health and Safety Executive investigation found that more could and should have been done
to prevent access to dangerous moving machinery parts.
The HSE investigation concluded that the company: • failed to provide interlocking guarding to stop dangerous
parts moving before a worker entered the danger zones;
• failed to provide effective supervision in order to prevent its
employees from entering danger zones while dangerous parts
were moving,
• failed to provide a safe system of work for clearing blockages,
ensuring mains isolators were locked off to prevent electrical
power being supplied to the machinery while employees
were in close proximity
• failed to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to
the health and safety of employees when exposed to dangerous
parts of conveyor belt machinery. Lowmac Alloys Ltd, of Green Street Lane, Ayr, was fined £118,000
after pleading guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 2(2)(a) and (c)
of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Scaffolding firm in court over worker’s insurance
A scaffolding firm has been fined after it ignored repeated requests
to prove it held insurance for employees working on the Fylde Coast.
The HSE was alerted to the possible lack of Employers’ Liability
Insurance – a requirement under UK law – when it received a
complaint about scaffolding erected by Abacus Scaffolding North
West Ltd at a site in Thornton Cleveleys in October 2013.
The company was contacted by the HSE on several occasions up
until April 2014 but it still failed to provide a copy of the insurance
certificate, which allows workers to claim compensation if they are
injured while at work.
Abacus Scaffolding was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £2,035
following a trial at Blackpool Magistrates’ Court on 8 October
2014. The company failed to attend the hearing and was found
guilty of a breach of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory
Insurance) Act 1969 in its absence.
NOVEMBER 2014
RISK MATTERS
Essex firm in court after worker’s fall
An Essex security firm has been fined after a maintenance engineer
broke his elbow when he fell more than three metres through fragile
ceiling tiles at a site in Dunton, Essex.
The engineer was attempting to access an electrical control panel
in a ceiling void to fix a faulty roller shutter door when the incident
happened on 21 December 2012. He sustained a fractured elbow
and ankle.
Security Door Systems Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE after an
investigation identified they had failed to make sure the work on
the ceiling panels was carried out safely.
Basildon Magistrates’ Court was told that the engineer, who had
worked on the same door on previous occasions, accessed the void
by a ladder supported by a colleague. He then made his way across
the ceiling panels, which were attached directly to the underside
of timber joists, using wooden ply board as a work platform.
After repairing the control panel and checking the door was
operational, he fell through the ceiling to the floor below.
The HSE found the company didn’t have a sufficient risk assessment
in place for undertaking work at height on the site. Following the
incident the electrical control panel was relocated to ground level
to avoid the need to work on the fragile ceiling.
Security Door Systems Ltd, of Thurrock Commercial Centre,
Purfleet Industrial Park, Aveley, Purfleet, was fined £6,000 and
ordered to pay costs of £440 after pleading guilty to a single
breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Further information about working safely at height can be found
on the HSE website at www.hse.gov.uk/falls.
Civil engineering firm in court for unsafe work at height
A Covent Garden-based civil engineering contractor has been
prosecuted for safety failings after an inspection of a Mayfair
construction site identified multiple work-at-height risks.
Peter Lind and Co (Central Region) Limited appeared at
Westminster Magistrates’ Court following the visit by the
HSE to a project on Queen Street in January 2014.
The court heard that concerns were first raised about safety
standards at the site, where two five-storey regency houses were
being extensively over-hauled, by an anonymous complainant
in December 2013.
When a HSE inspector visited some eight weeks later he
uncovered a catalogue of issues, including:
• Missing or inadequate edge protection in several locations –
exposing workers to potential falls of between three and
eight metres.
• Unsafe temporary ladders in place of a staircase that had
been removed.
• Missing toe boards and other edge protection on several
tower scaffolds.
• Materials and equipment, including a heavy fire extinguisher,
were left on edges where it was liable to fall and cause injury.
The failings mirrored those raised by the original complainant,
meaning nothing had changed in the intervening period to
protect workers. They were exposed to unnecessary risk for
at least two months.
The HSE immediately served a Prohibition Notice requiring urgent
improvements in relation to work at height. Two improvement
notices were also served that needed action.
The court was told that although nobody was injured at the site, the
potential for a serious or potentially fatal fall was very real. The HSE
concluded that the work at height was poorly assessed, managed
and monitored, and fell well short of the required legal standards.
Peter Lind and Co (Central Region) Limited was fined a total of
£11,500 and ordered to pay £1,369 in costs after pleading guilty
to two separate breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Further information on working safely at height can be found
online at www.hse.gov.uk/falls
NOVEMBER 2014
RISK MATTERS
Letting agency ignored need for property’s gas safety checks
A Birmingham lettings agency was fined after failing to ensure gas
safety checks were made on a property it managed, potentially
putting tenants’ lives at risk. MT Properties Central Ltd, based in Small Heath, failed to arrange
the statutory landlord gas safety check on the property it leased to
tenants in Stechford, and subsequently failed to produce any
confirmation that the checks had been carried out. HSE was made aware of concerns over the existence of a gas safety
record for the property and tried several times to get a response
from the company.
After hearing nothing from them, the HSE issued an
Improvement Notice. Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard that the Notice required MT
Properties to employ a Gas Safe registered engineer to carry out the
necessary checks by 6 September 2013 and produce evidence that
the Notice had been complied with. MT Properties Central Ltd of Green Lane, Small Heath,
pleaded guilty to breaching the Gas Safety (Installation and Use)
Regulations 1998 and the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974,
and was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay costs of £957. However, the company failed to comply with the notice or to
request an extension.
For advice on gas safety visit www.hse.gov.uk/gas or to find
a Gas Safe registered engineer visit www.gassaferegister.co.uk
About Arthur J. Gallagher
Founded in 1927, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. has become one of the largest, most successful insurance brokerage and risk management
companies in the world. With extraordinary reach internationally, our parent group employs over 17,000 people and provides service
in more than 140 countries.
Outside the US we are known as Arthur J. Gallagher, and wherever and whenever there is an issue of risk we’re there for our clients.
We are a business without barriers – working together to create solutions that drive value and competitive advantage. Whether you
are an individual, small business or international conglomerate, our people, their depth of technical knowledge and our global reach
will deliver unrivalled advice and coverage expertise.
Arthur J. Gallagher (GB) is a trading name of Oval Insurance Broking Limited. Oval Insurance Broking Limited is authorised and regulated by the
Financial Conduct Authority. Registered Office: 9 South Parade, Wakefield, WF1 1LR. Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 1195184.
Oval Insurance Broking Limited is a member of the Arthur J. Gallagher group.
www.ajginternational.com
CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
This information is not intended to constitute any form of opinion and recipients should not infer any opinion from its content. Recipients should not rely exclusively on the information
contained in the bulletin and should make decisions based on a full consideration of all available information.
We make no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or correctness of the information provided. We and our officers, employees or agents shall not be responsible for
any loss whatsoever arising from the recipient’s reliance upon any information we provide and exclude liability for the statistical content to fullest extent permitted by law.