What's your liability IQ? Part I

DAN BUELOW: Hello and welcome to Talk to Me About A&E. I'm Dan Buelow, Managing Director of Willis A&E. And our program today is one I've been wanting to do for quite some time. And that is a review of DPIC's Liability IQ.

With the help from a couple of very special guests and fellow ex-DPICeers, we will be going over a number of questions from the DPIC Liability IQ test. The Liability IQ was the test from the DPIC lessons in liability education program covering a wide range of issues impacting the design professionals risk.

DPIC was an insurance company that provided professional liability insurance for design professionals. Up until his demise some 20 years ago, DPIC was a very special company with a beautiful business model. Founded by Edward Howell, Design Professionals Insurance Company, DPIC, was widely regarded as the leader in offering quality risk management education programs for architects and engineers.

DPIC's tagline was different by design. And it truly was a pioneer in the area as it benchmarked the concept of loss prevention and limitation of liability. There was the famous DPIC contract guide authored by Dick Kroll and Sheila Dixon, widely regarded as the very best guide of its kind, along with a wide range of education materials created by DPIC over the years for their insureds, including the DPIC Lessons in Liability and Liability IQ. That was released over 30 years ago.

I was very fortunate to have been a part of DPIC near the end of its existence when I was hired in 1997 as a regional leader for DPIC in Monterey, California, to manage the distribution and underwriting for a 14-state region.

I met a lot of great people when I joined DPIC over 27 years ago, including my two very special guests today, Laura Guagliardo, who is now Managing Director of Design Professional Liability Claims for Travelers, and our very own Mark Blankenship, Director of Risk Management for Willis A&E. Hello, Laura.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Hello there, Dan. It's nice to see you.

DAN BUELOW: It's great to have you. And hello, Mark.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: Hello, Dan. Glad to be here.

DAN BUELOW: Welcome back. So Laura is currently the Managing Director of Design Professional Claims at Travelers. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame and received her law degree from the University of Illinois.

Laura's career at professional liability carriers writing architects and engineers professional liability began in 1997 when she began as a claims professional at DPIC. Mark also has a stint with DPIC. And Mark, I'll ask you to give your bio here, your short bio.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: Well, my short bio is I started in professional liability claims actually handling lawyers' claims. But I quickly determined that they were not making sympathetic defendants, so I moved over to architects and engineers world about the same time that Laura arrived on the scene there. And after that, I served as a broker for predecessors to WTW A&E, then also as an underwriter for Liberty. So that completes my nerd trifecta of claims, brokerage, and underwriting.

DAN BUELOW: Well, who better to help me with this discussion on DPIC's Liability IQ than Laura and Mark? Now, while it's true the program we're going to go over today is a tad dated as it was released over 30 years ago, however, it is remarkable how very relevant this material is to this day.

In other words, design firms are getting sued for many of the same reasons they were 30 years ago. So Laura, Mark, and I will be reviewing approximately 20 of the 45 or so questions from the DPIC Liability IQ. We will be reviewing some basic yet critical risk management considerations along with some more nuanced risk management issues.

Well, I took some liberty with the selection and order of the questions from the Liability IQ. This should be fun. So, Laura, let's start off with the first question here for the day. The standard of care for an architect and engineers is perfection.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Oh, that's a false-- that's a false statement. That's one of the basics of professional liability. Whether it's architects and engineers, lawyers, dentists, it doesn't matter. The standard of care is not perfection.

Professional can't guarantee the outcome. We can only do using our skill and ability the best that we can do, the reasonable amount that we can do. It is that standard, that reasonableness standard that is so key to the responsibilities.

DAN BUELOW: Hey, Mark. On the standard of care, there is the question, does it evolve? And is it evolving?

MARK BLANKENSHIP: I would submit that it has evolved and for the better. Back when we started, the structural engineers were paying sometimes 6% of gross revenues for their professional liability premiums. But the practice has gotten better with BIM.

BIM has evolved the art of clash detection and firms have gotten better. Drawings have gotten better. And claims in some respects have gone down, technical claims. And I think that's part of the evolution of the standard of care. It's allowed for professional liability rates to generally come down over the last 20 years up until recently when they bottomed out.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Well, but the evolution is also related to developments in the industry. I mean, we went through green and the concept of green and whether or not we're-- whether something is in line with LEED and what the risks and obligations are when you're talking about going green.

There's also the concept of, as Mark was saying, the various technical things that keep coming up, the aspect of BIM, the aspect of other project delivery systems. All of that is something that is part of the standard of care and the evolution of the standard of care.

DAN BUELOW: I would just add to that. On this same vein here is around climate change also as an emerging risk and how the standard of care is evolving with that and what firms should be thinking about when it comes to managing that risk around informed consent and so on. Mark, did you have something to add on that? Sorry.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: I do. I would say that one area of concern today is how the standard of care is going to be presented by experts testifying against design professionals in the future in the wake of weather-related claims.

In other words, I think there's going to be a growing expectation, or there is already a growing expectation that design professionals are the smartest person in the room and therefore should be advising clients of the risks associated with climate change, be they wildfire, be they flood, or even here in the Midwest, we're seeing an increase in wind damage claims.

DAN BUELOW: Excellent points. OK. Question number two for Mark here. Design professionals tend to overeducate their clients as to their professional duties and responsibilities. True or false, Mark?

MARK BLANKENSHIP: I would say that is generally false. And the manifestation of imperfection is in change orders. And so if we accept that the standard of care is something less than perfection, that implies that there are allowable errors. And the reason for that is each design is unique. Every building that we build is different. And where there is this uniqueness, there is uncertainty.

And this manifests itself in change orders. So one of the most powerful tools I have found that design professionals can use to protect themselves against claims is to educate their clients about contingencies and get them to set aside a design contingency to cover those inevitable things that need to get worked out in the field.

DAN BUELOW: Because you really can't have a conversation around contingencies, can you? Without having a conversation back to the standard of care, right? I mean, why are we having this conversation?

And I think to the point you're making here and to this earlier question about the standard of care is that we will generally always get this question right, all of us and our clients and the architects and engineers' world. When you ask them the standard of care of architects and engineers is perfection, we laugh. And we say, oh, that's ridiculous. No, it's not. However, what if we asked that same question to a room full of our clients, prospective clients? Would they all giggle and get that right, Laura?

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Dan, I think you're right on target right there because I think that is something that design professionals tend to overlook in the conversations with their clients, is taking the time to have that education process.

I can't tell you the number of claims that we've seen where the other side is simply, well, we relied on the expert. We relied on the design professional because they were the expert. That's why we were paying them.

Well, OK, yes, you were paying them for a service. But that service, as we've talked about, is not perfection. But that's not always understood. And unfortunately, that nontangible, nonerror type of thing is the way that claims tend to come around when the communication just didn't work.

DAN BUELOW: And you're seeing obviously, Laura, a lot of claims. And I would always say that 3/4, let's say a lot or most claims against design professionals are rooted in expectations not being established and not being managed. Now, I know that can vary because of when you have staffing issues and you've got arguably more technical errors as a result of that. But do you still feel that's essentially true?

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Oh, without question, Dan. Expectation and unmet expectation are generally the biggest problem with claim. I mean, yes, technical errors happen. Yes, contract language is not appropriate. Yes, there are varying other issues. But that basic idea of what I wanted and what I got and those two not matching up often become the basis of the claim.

DAN BUELOW: And it really is the reason we lead off with these two questions. Really this is the basis for a lot, isn't it? Taking the responsibility as a design professional and managing these expectations and the standard of care.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: And that's part of the responsibility of the design professional. I mean, I have a daughter who's a new civil engineer. And without question, that is something she is being told as she is learning her first year on the job about, you have to make sure you're communicating to the client what they can expect and what you can provide. Don't oversell it. Make sure you're being straightforward about it.

DAN BUELOW: Great points. So my next question is my only multiple-choice question that I pulled from the IQ test here. Where are most claim dollars spent? A, claims due to economic loss. B, claims due to bodily injury. Or C, claims due to property damage. Laura.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Well, without question I would say that it's A. And that is due to economic loss because that's the basic claim. The basic claim is the owner isn't happy with what happened with the design professional. They've either had to pay for additional sums because something went wrong or the contractor was delayed or whatever the case may be. And so it's due to that economic loss.

I will comment though that bodily injury is something that we are very attentive to right now. The industry as a whole is seeing an increase of bodily injury claims being actively pursued against design professionals. Now, we've always seen the design professional bodily injury claims where the plaintiff attorney did the shotgun approach of bringing in everybody who even touched the project.

But we're finding now, particularly in road projects, that when there's pursuit, there's more attention due to the traffic engineers, the civil engineers involved in the projects because they have a bigger pocket. The automobile drivers don't necessarily have the dollars of insurance that can appropriately handle some of the significant injuries that are out there.

DAN BUELOW: We would agree with that. We certainly have seen a rash of these types of claims, BI claims.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: We would agree with that. And I'd like to follow up with some contract suggestions. There's very little that we can do with regard to being named in a lawsuit as a defendant after an injury.

But one thing that we should strive for, I think, is to be named as an additional insured on the contractor's policy. Then if that accident happens, we can tend to our defense and indemnity to the contractor.

I know there's pushback on this ask. But I think it's worth it. And I think it's fair and just because the contractor has contractual responsibility for managing the job site safety exposure. And part of managing that exposure is ensuring that exposure.

DAN BUELOW: And with just our last podcast, Mark and I together with General Counsel for SEB, Lou Gail, get into the weeds on that conversation, so definitely check that out.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: I have another follow up comment in response to Laura's observation that yes, most claims are for economic loss. And in most states in the United States, we follow the economic loss rule that says you can only sue somebody for purely economic loss if you have a contract with them.

So the implication here is that we only want to agree to indemnify our client who we owe professional duties to because most claims are economic loss. The client is the only one that can sue us for purely economic loss.

And to agree to indemnify third parties to the contract would potentially create a coverage issue because they would have no standing to sue in the absence of the contract. Therefore, indemnification of third parties is a liability sooner in the contract.

DAN BUELOW: Great point. And I know we have to keep an eye on where our clients are doing business or they certainly need to. Right, Laura? You got erosion of that economic loss doctrine in some areas of the country and different practice acts and laws and statutes and so forth from state to state. So it's good idea to get good counsel, if you will, depending on where you're doing business.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Without question. In any contracting, if you're moving into a new area, whether it's even local, or statewide, or whatever, you need to be aware of what the obligations are and what the requirements are and whether or not you are protected by the economic loss rule or not.

DAN BUELOW: Excellent. All right, this one is for Mark and Laura. This question is, litigation today is far quicker and less expensive process than just a few years ago. Now, keep in mind, this question was asked 30 years ago.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: Hardy har har. So what do we say?

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Go ahead, Mark.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: Yeah, no, not in the list. Costs continue to go up. And in fact, today the new driver of costs in litigation is electronic discovery. In many cases, due to the volume of electronic materials, when there's a claim, they will set up an electronic repository for all the documents to be placed in.

And the costs of maintaining one of these repositories, it can be shockingly expensive, quite frankly. So as always, we want to ask, what can we do about it? Work with your carrier, obviously. And they have a panel counsel who is incentivized to get your case over with early and cheaply by the promise of a stream of future cases.

As far as document management, this was a tip suggested by our old friend, Mark Friedlander , who suggested that if an issue comes up, create an issue file. And then all of the correspondence related to that issue gets copied to the issue file. And this will save you legit time and money should it turn into a claim. And hopefully this will relieve your attorney from having to review all the file documents looking for the important file documents.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Mark, that's a great tip because that is one of the biggest issues that we have. I mean, when you think about the litigation that gets filed nowadays, it's rarely the one party, one party litigation. Usually you're looking at multiple-party litigation.

And when you have multiple-party litigation, that's when you get into those e-discovery issues and the places where the dollars just fly out the door simply because there's so much going on at any given point.

Any project that's a relatively large project, not a single-family home but a building, think about the number of contractors, the number of design professionals, the number of other entities that are involved in the development of those. And those are all potential parties to the litigation.

And so that's something to think about with regard. That concept of keeping issue files is a very good one because it gives the lawyer the place to go look, the place to go find the information that's relevant, that maybe they don't have to worry about what else is in the rest of the files.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: Laura, do you have any other general suggestions for litigation management, how to control the expenses associated with being involved in litigation?

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: One is to be completely frank with your insurance carrier. Let them know what you know, what is good, what is bad, and what is ugly because the sooner we can understand what the issues are, the sooner that we can move toward a resolution.

DAN BUELOW: Great point.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: And that's something that I know it's very hard to come clean when you think it's your problem but it might be somebody else's problem but you're not sure. And the sooner you come clean, the better we can help to set out the discovery, what needs to be done to figure out what exactly and how everything falls. That's probably one of the key things I would say.

DAN BUELOW: You got look to that carrier as your trusted partner. I mean, it really is. And I know some insurers may feel-- rather, be in a defensive posture or looking to maybe couch some things or what have you because of a concern for future insurance costs or what have you. But your job at that stage is to shut this thing down and manage that claim.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: That is the key. And Mark, when you were talking about the concept of the file, the other thing is basic file maintenance, how a design professional, even when there is no claim, maintains its file, making sure the documents are in the right places that you can identify the things you need to find. That's another thing that's key.

DAN BUELOW: So excellent points. And in fact, we have just completed our survey of 14 professional liability carriers in the industry on emerging claim issues and trends. And one of the questions we had was about this, how long does it take to resolve a dispute these days?

And the average between all the 14 carriers was two to three-plus years. So that's a long period of time. And to Laura and Mark's points here, documentation is so important because that illustrates that this is a long-tail business. That's what we mean by professional liability. And you're going to have two to three years from the future here to be managing it. And to have good documentation cannot be overstated.

So, again, great point. A lot to talk about on that question. My next question here, again, I'm going to ask Laura and Mark to team up on this one. But your professional liability insurance company can settle a claim without your consent.

A question a while ago. And it raises some issues. But, Laura, I mean, for you and you look at Travelers and some of the things that you may run into that-- I know there's the notion of the hammer clause and all this and some other considerations. But what is your position on this? And again, I think this is important to just educate the insureds as to what their responsibility is as well.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: The Travelers policy is most of the other professional liability policies out there for architects and engineers, contains what is referred to as the consent clause, which means that that carrier under the contract language cannot settle a claim without the insured's consent, which means we're going to be looking to you to understand what it is your ideas are, what your thoughts are, and what's protecting you, what's important to you.

Without question, that's something that should come out and be part of the conversations when you start talking about settlement. It's going to help you understand where your deductible comes into play, how it comes into play, ultimately if there's any type of credits or anything else that might apply over the process.

So as you are moving toward the closure or resolution and settlements being discussed, it's really important that the insured starts thinking long and hard about what they're willing to do here and what they want.

Is it resolve it at any and all costs? Is that what's the right thing for them? Or is it, no, I don't believe what they're coming after me with. I don't want to pay $1 million. The insured should remain an active part of that conversation.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: And once again, I want to pile on Laura's comment. The reason for the consent clause, I think, is to give the insured the ability to protect their reputation. But there is a countervailing measure in most policies, which is known in the vernacular as the hammer clause.

Most policies also have a provision that says, if the insured refuses to consent to a settlement that the insurer recommends, then the insurer has no obligation to pay more than the amount that they could have settled the matter for. So be aware of that term as well as it exists in some form in most policies.

DAN BUELOW: Great points. And we have a two-part claims podcast series on managing a professional liability claim. So we could go on and on that one. To the next question, though. OK. Mark, overstating your firm's capabilities, even if done unintentionally can be considered misrepresentation.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: Firm's websites have been introduced into trials as exhibit A at the outset of the trial in more than one case that I'm aware of.

And typically, it's statements like we bring projects in under budget and on time representations or statements like that an ingenious plaintiff's counsel will try to morph into a warranty statement. But I think the answer then is true. This has happened. Marketing materials have been used against firms at trial.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: I've certainly seen that as well. And it can be a rather dangerous situation.

DAN BUELOW: Great points. I think while the courts will allow a certain level of puffery, as we say, it can and will be used against you, exhibit A, as Mark says on that. I think there's also where this could go is along taking on projects where a firm maybe is less experienced or doesn't have the experience levels and so forth. And that can evolve certainly into an area where we've seen claims, where it's-- and then we get into this discussion around project team capabilities.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: Well, Dan, I think that's particularly relevant to the apartment market today. As an underwriter, I noticed that apartments are trending badly, very badly, in fact. And I had the opportunity to interview a principal of a firm who was designing $30 million worth of apartments-- and I'm talking professional fees-- yea after year for 10 years with no claims.

And I interviewed them. And I asked, what is driving the apartment claim story that we're seeing today? And he said one of the three major contributing factors was design professionals dabbling. They recognized the market opportunity for housing. But they didn't have the experience to execute the projects well.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Experience is the key in any area you're moving into, as Mark talked about. Dabbling is dangerous. Different types of projects have different requirements, health care, apartments, the concept of any type of warehouse facilities.

They all have specific needs that unless you are specifically aware of what those needs are, they are very easy to miss until it's too late. And then you can't get the approvals. You can't get the certifications or whatever else is needed by whatever permitting body or entity guiding body is out there. The delays can build up very, very quickly.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: It's interesting that Laura mentioned hospitals in particular. One of the fascinating little factoids of underwriting was that hospitals for architects proved to be a very favorable project type and discipline mix.

And the hospitals are technically difficult buildings to design because you typically have two codes to deal with. You've got a building code. And you've got a health code that have to be harmonized. And yet this class has proven generally very good for insurers. And I think the reason is hospitals want specialist architects. They insist on dealing with the specialist.

And on the other side of the coin, I had a client who was very good at offices. And then they decided to do a food production facility for one of their clients. And they ran into a problem. They fast tracked the project. The cooking equipment wouldn't fit in the clean room. And then later there were problems.

That was the biggest claim I ever had as an underwriter. It came from the firm that I thought was least likely to ever have a claim because they were specialists in offices and did that very well. They stepped outside of their comfort zone. And it didn't work out well for any of us.

DAN BUELOW: Excellent points. All right, next question, both for Mark and Laura. The use of extreme words, such as any, all, complete, or final, can impose absolute conditions on you that may be impossible to meet.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: Well, it's funny how such little words can have such big implications. And my favorite example is in every owner-drafted agreement, I see the designer shall comply with all laws. Well, OK. I like to revise that to say that will meet the professional standard of care relative to applicable laws. Laura, I'm sure you have some other examples.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Oh, Mark, you're right. I mean, Dan, this is coming right back to the concept of perfection and the standard of care. This is coming back to the, I'm not going to make any mistake. I'm going to do all the services that need to be performed.

I'm going to make sure that any permitting agency will put this through. Any type of situation where you're putting yourself in that position of your practically guaranteeing or you're saying, no matter what, I'm meeting it, you're putting yourself at risk.

DAN BUELOW: And Laura, that's a great point. And as someone that's looking at these claims, it's something that you have to stress, don't you, that words are important, especially when we get into the contract formation here and you run into this, don't you, around-- and talk to us a little bit about the exclusion that every professional liability has about assuming liability under contract, that in the absence of that contract, they would not be liable for.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Yeah, every professional liability has that exclusion that says, if you take on an obligation under a contract that you would not otherwise have under law, there is risk that there is not coverage under the policy in that realm. And so you've got to really be mindful of the words of the contract and what it is you are agreeing to because, ultimately, that can create a coverage issue.

DAN BUELOW: And I think when we talk about these words, it's also important to stress how important it is for all levels of staff, not only those individuals that are negotiating these contracts in which it's critical but also all of your staff when it comes to drafting emails, or field notes, or anything out. There these words are important.

And so I don't know if you have any comments on that, Mark or Laura. But it's something that, again, we touched on it a bit already in the marketing materials. But when it comes to emails and field notes-- and we've talked a lot about this in the past. But it's something you need to be aware of.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Documentation of any point, you need to be careful you're conveying what it is. I mean, we kind of talked even a little earlier about the communication aspect. It is very important that you are communicating what you intend to communicate here.

And so you need to basically go back and read the sentences you're writing or any individual in your team is writing and say, OK, are we really going to comply with all laws? What if it doesn't matter? What if it's in conflict? Is this what we still intend to do?

MARK BLANKENSHIP: I have done a lot of in-house programs over the years. And a question I frequently ask is, have you ever seen an occupancy inspector differ with a permit official over code interpretation?

The answer is always yes. So when we ask about compliance with all laws, I think it's not as black and white as the question appears. Really there's shades of gray. And we want to allow for some nuance in the interpretations.

DAN BUELOW: Excellent. So next question for Laura. You should always try to get a clause in your contract that requires arbitration as the first step in the dispute resolution process.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Well, I'm not a huge fan of arbitration in every instance. What I would suggest is that lovely nonbinding dispute resolution process of mediation where people get to sit down at a table, work with a neutral in the middle, and take arguments back and forth, and try to find a resolution that everyone can agree to. We may not like it. We may not be happy about it. But we can agree to it. If you--

DAN BUELOW: I'm sorry. But if it's mediation or, in your point, nonbinding and you're not happy with that, you're not stuck with that decision is the big point, right?

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: That's the big point. Yeah, Dan, that is it. I mean, at the end of the day, some disputes have no option but to go to formal dispute resolution. And your options for the most part are either arbitration or litigation.

They each have benefits. They each have sides and things that aren't exactly benefits for them. And you need to consider it depending upon the circumstances you're set in. Right now, litigation is exceptionally slow-moving because of everything that happened with COVID and the courts getting backed up. And litigations are almost nonending. They keep going.

And arbitration can be faster. But also in arbitration, you don't have as strong of decision making on law arguments alone where you don't have to go through the whole formal process of testimony and everything to the court. It's more likely you're going to have to go through that 3, or 4, or 5, or 10-day, 30-day process of where there's testimony in an arbitration because they won't make decisions early on.

In any instance, you should be sitting down with your advisors, your trusted advisors to talk about what the options should be and what you should consider. But no matter what, mediation is the way to go in the first step because you avoid all the costs associated with that formal dispute resolution process.

DAN BUELOW: Excellent. OK. Mark, here's one a little bit out of left field here. But personnel policies have very little to do with a design firm's risk management profile.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: Well, I'm going to go with false again. The one issue in particular that comes up is moonlighting. If an employee is moonlighting on a project and there's a problem, the owner of the property definitely has an incentive to try and bring the firm into the claim.

And they will likely be successful if the employee used any of the company resources during the execution of their side hustle. For instance, even using the fax machine, or the company email, or printing off the company printer, any hook would be--

DAN BUELOW: They're going to find it.

MARK BLANKENSHIP: They're going to try and find it.

DAN BUELOW: And if you're like me, you probably haven't read your entire employee handbook. But trust me, in most firms, it's in there that you shouldn't be moonlighting. And you need to be aware of that for the points that Mark says, is that liability will follow there.

What about, I don't know, Laura, Mark, around volunteering, or pro bono work, or habitat for humanity, or some of these other things that you might want some of your staff to do? Do you have any suggestions on how to mitigate potential exposure in that situation?

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Well, again, make sure you have a contract. And make sure that you're communicating expectation and managing expectation there. It's OK to do pro bono work.

DAN BUELOW: Sure.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: That's OK.

DAN BUELOW: But your point on the contract is a great one, isn't it?

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Oh, yeah.

DAN BUELOW: I mean, you really-- otherwise, if you work on a verbal basis, it's anything goes really.

LAURA GUAGLIARDO: Anything goes, yeah. Verbal is anything goes. There's no parameters on what's obligated and what's not other than what's in the head of whoever decides to open their mouth and say it.

DAN BUELOW: Well, this is a good place to conclude part one of our review of the DPIC Liability IQ questions. I want to thank my special guest Laura Guagliardo, Director of Claims for Travelers Professional Liability, and Mark Blankenship, Director of Risk Management for Willis A&E, for this lively discussion.

Be sure to check out part two of this discussion coming out soon. Our Willis A&E education programs, including these podcasts, can all be found on our website at www.wtwae.com. Thanks again for joining me for another episode of Talk to Me About A&E. I'm Dan Buelow. And I will talk to you soon.

SPEAKER: Thank you for joining us for this WTW podcast featuring the latest thinking on the intersection of people, capital, and risk. For more information on Willis A&E and our educational programs, visit willisae.com.

WTW hopes you found the general information provided in this podcast informative and helpful. The information contained herein is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied upon in lieu of consultation with your own legal advisors.

In the event you would like more information regarding your insurance coverage, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. In North America, WTW offers insurance products through licensed entities, including Willis Towers Watson Northeast Incorporated in the United States and Willis Canada Incorporated in Canada.