Tag Archives: insurer

Insurers see the benefit and want to share the rewards


This is a great article – and yes I am quoted – but more interesting are the comments from the underwriters and the owners – feel free to share as you wish!

A perspective on EAL’s is coming soon watch this space!



I often hear people discussing CM and CBM in terms of the difficulties that they face when trying to facilitate a change or approach to the management of maintenance or asset health, often citing manufacturers warrantee or PM handbooks as a blocker.

To them I say warrantee is normally 12 or at best 24 months so after that you are on your own. You can and often will get support from major asset manufacturers to maintain via a CM or CBM strategy and where you do not you can get class support via operation of related and class approved PMS, CM and CBM activities.

The next response may be that underwriters/insurers will not support claims where handbook activities have not been followed. This again is a weak argument as many detectable failures are not sufficiently significant to breach the deductibles threshold where a claim may be relevant. In the case where claims are appropriate, the loss adjuster will look to see that you have made sufficient efforts to prevent failures. Where you operate and comply with a class approved PMS plus CM or CBM approach then you will not only have demonstrated a degree or planning and procedure to protect the asset but will also have added an additional layer of assurance via the support achieved via class.

It is when companies make a claim for clearly preventable machinery failures that insurers and underwriters look to minimise their losses. It follows that insurers look to underwrite reliable assets that offer low risks  and where the company behaves as a prudent uninsured. This is why in the future it is likely that those who DO NOT add additional assurances via protective devices like CM and CBM may find that they cannot attract the most favourable rates.

What do you think?