Historical legal statuses and liability

The classification system used to determine legal status originated from English Common Law and divided guests on the property into three categories for the purpose of establishing a degree of duty owed to them:  

1. Invitees
   • Example: Customers of a store.
   • Duty owed: The highest duty of care, which would include having regular inspections of the premise and remediation of any potential dangers, or warnings of potential dangers if they cannot be remediated immediately
2. Licensees
   • Example: Social guests or service-related vendors employed by other companies who provide services on the owned property
   • Duty Owed: Moderate duty to warn of known dangers that are not easily seen, but there is no duty to inspect
3. Trespassers
   • Example: Burglars or anyone on the premises past permitted hours
   • Duty Owed: Least amount of duty, typically only to refrain from intentional harm

When an adjuster is handling a premise liability claim it can be critical to understand the injured party’s status on the property.  Unfortunately, an individual’s status on the property can change multiple times during a single visit, thereby creating complexity in the investigation. 

For instance, a visitor to a local retail establishment would be considered an invitee, to whom the highest degree of case is owed, while they are browsing the public areas of the premises. However, should they venture into areas designated as “Employees Only” or “Private,” their status could change to trespasser, which carries the least amount of duty. 

It becomes even more complicated when the trespasser is a minor child. Some states have adopted the doctrine of “attractive nuisance” to move away from the rigidity of duties owed to trespassers and allow for the introduction of reasonableness in deciding negligence. The trick, however, is trying to assess what is “reasonable.”

Negligence and shifting standards

Because of these challenges, there is a shift away from these common law practices and towards a “reasonable person standard” when assessing negligence. As of the date of this writing, at least 9 states have abolished the use of all 3 status types (AK, HI, IL, IA, LA, NV, NH, NY, NC), and another 14 states have abolished invitee and licensee statuses but retained the use of Trespasser (FL, KS, ME, MD, KS, MA, NE, NM, ND, OR, RI, TN, WI, WY). At least one other state, Georgia, has retained the use of legal status but changed the level of proof from “clear and convincing evidence of foreseeability” to “reasonably should have known” thereby coming more into alignment with states shifting away from the traditional common law practices and towards a reasonable person standard.  

The implications for claims professionals can be significant. This shift towards a “reasonable person standard” requires a much more in-depth understanding of not only the facts of the incident, but of the condition of the premises and surrounding environment in order to answer the core question of whether a property owner/occupier acted reasonably to prevent harm. A liability adjuster should explore at least three areas of actions:

1. Foreseeability of harm
2. Reasonableness of the property owner’s actions
3. The condition of the premises including security and safety measures 

Accounting for foreseeability of harm

Foreseeability of harm is not new to tort liability. The landmark case often cited with regards to American tort law goes back to 1928 with the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company. In this case, two employees of the railroad were attempting to help a late passenger board an already moving train. One employee was pushing the soon-to-be-passenger from the platform and the second employee was pulling from inside the train itself. During the transition, the passenger dropped his package which was full of fireworks. The fireworks exploded with sufficient force that it rattled the entire platform and a set of tall scales at the other end of the platform fell and injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the railroad for negligence. Eventually, the New York Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiff’s injuries could not be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of attempting to help the man board the train and ruled in favor of the railroad.  

Key features of foreseeability vary by state but generally have the following aspects:

1. Reasonable prediction: Would a reasonable property owner/occupier have predicted harm given the circumstances?
2. Knowledge of risks: Normally includes some aspect of whether the owner/occupier knew about, or should have known about, the risk under a reasonable person perspective.
3. Preventative measures: Would a reasonable person be expected to perform periodic inspections or have reasonable security measures in place, including calling 9-1-1 for potential threats?
4. Similar incidents: Have there been similar incidents at the premises or in close proximity to the premise that a reasonable person would believe in higher risk levels? This can include local crime rates and history of similar crimes in the area.

Claims professionals and negligence today

Claims professionals can no longer rely upon legal status when assessing negligence. They will need to ask probing questions using critical thinking skills and a curious mindset to fully assess negligence. Judges frequently take the position that a “reasonable person standard” is a question for the jury rather than a question for the law. This will bring greater focus on the negotiating skills of claims professionals to demonstrate their knowledge of the facts and craft a persuasive argument to reach settlement prior to reaching a jury. Otherwise, businesses and their insurers can expect to see increased litigation rates and costs.

The scene brought back memories of a similar incident in 2017, when the UNITE-Tomorrowland stage in Barcelona caught fire, forcing the evacuation of 22,000 attendees in under three minutes.

Separated by eight years, both events offer more than dramatic visuals — they prompt a serious reflection on risk management, prevention and resilience in large-scale temporary events.

Summer: high season for risk

Summer is synonymous with festivals, concerts and outdoor gatherings — but it also brings improvisation, tight schedules, and limited foresight. Large-scale festivals depend on temporary infrastructure, often built under pressure and with little room for error — a perfect storm for incidents like the one at Tomorrowland.

Behind the scenes, the reality is complex:

• First-time builds with no prior testing.
• Compressed timelines that lead to shortcuts, sometimes compromising safety.
• Technical teams working in close quarters without proper coordination.
• Incomplete installations overlapping with last-minute rehearsals and adjustments.
• Safety protocols relaxed due to time constraints.

This combination creates fertile ground for fires, structural failures, human error or unforeseen natural events.

Anatomy of a foreseeable fire: what went wrong at Tomorrowland

Initial investigations suggest a technical fault during lighting and pyrotechnic tests. Flames rapidly engulfed over 30 metres of polystyrene set pieces, thousands of LED panels, and sound equipment valued at €7 million.

The silver lining: no injuries were reported. The evacuation of 1,000 workers was executed swiftly and efficiently, thanks to a well-rehearsed emergency plan.

The Tomorrowland fire might have been accidental, but it drives home the same message: resilience can’t be theoretical. Response protocols need to be rehearsed, routes tested and staff trained. When a crisis hits, it’s too late to be writing a plan — you need one that’s already lived, understood and ready to deploy.

When every second counts: the importance of preparedness

In an emergency, every second matters. At Tomorrowland, priorities were clear: protect lives, contain the fire and minimise losses. Having a protocol is vital — but knowing how to apply it is even more so. Teams must be clear on:

• Who to contact.
• What actions to take.
• How to shut off supplies.
• The safest evacuation routes.

Coordination with fire services and security forces was critical. While they lead the response, a trained internal team can make a decisive difference — and sometimes even prevent the need for external intervention.

Events like Tomorrowland are a reminder that no production operates in a vacuum. At Sedgwick, we’re increasingly coordinating cross-border losses — with teams in the UK, Spain and across EMEA and the Far East working together on complex claims for festivals, films and live events. 

Whether it’s a multi-stage build or a three-camera shoot, understanding the production context and the insurance structure is essential. In reality, the show only goes on when the response is aligned, credible and fast.

Crisis management: beyond the flames

The impact of a disaster extends beyond financial loss. For recurring events, reputational damage can be harder to recover from than a cancellation.

Tomorrowland responded swiftly, thanks to three strategic decisions:

• Alternative stage: Within 48 hours, a modular Mainstage was constructed, preserving the festival experience despite the loss of the original set design.
• Operational split: If the new stage wasn’t ready by Friday, headline DJs would perform in DreamVille, a separate area of the site. This “Plan B” would have ensured a positive experience for attendees regardless.
• Insurance cover: Property and event cancellation policies absorbed direct costs (rented equipment, set design, ticket revenue) and mitigation expenses.

Insurance lessons that must not be forgotten

Insurers are asking tougher questions now — rightly so. In the UK, there’s growing scrutiny around risk documentation: method statements, rehearsal schedules, inspection records, even drone footage of rigging or fireproofing. The gap between what’s written in a risk assessment and what actually happens on-site can be the difference between a swift settlement and a prolonged coverage dispute. If protocols exist on paper but aren’t followed in practice, expect questions — and delays.

These incidents underscore a fundamental truth: no matter how thorough the planning, not everything can be prevented. That’s why having the right insurance is not optional — it’s strategic.

Key takeaways:

• Risk assessments are legally required and essential for safety. They must be tailored to the event and go beyond standard evaluations.
• Preventive measures identified during the assessment must be implemented — both to meet regulatory requirements and satisfy insurers.
• A comprehensive emergency protocol must be in place — and more importantly, all staff (especially team leaders) must understand it and know who to contact in the event of an incident.

Every incident should be analysed to determine its root cause and to implement measures that prevent recurrence.

The role of insurance: softening the blow

Having insurance in place is one thing; getting it to respond under pressure is another. We’ve handled major claims where everything from ignition timelines to the comparability of replacement kit was challenged. Business continuity doesn’t just rely on having a Plan B, it depends on being able to justify the spend, show your workings, and evidence that your mitigation was proportionate, necessary, and covered. That’s where experienced adjusters and coordinated broker support come into their own — especially when coordination spans multiple borders.

Even with robust precautions, some incidents are unavoidable. That’s why, from an insurance perspective, thorough risk analysis and comprehensive cover are essential — not only for material damage, but also for loss of income, event cancellation and liability.

Risk management culture: the cornerstone of business continuity

Tomorrowland’s experience shows that a genuine risk management culture goes beyond written protocols — it must be embedded in daily operations. Anticipation, rehearsals, staff training, and coordination with emergency services were key to avoiding casualties and containing damage.

The UK is also entering a new regulatory era. With Martyn’s Law set to come into force, event organisers will face a statutory duty to embed counterterrorism and major incident planning into every stage of their operations. This goes way beyond fire drills; it’s about having credible, dynamic response plans for a range of threats, from accidental incidents to deliberate attacks.

This proves that risk planning must be lived, not just documented. Teams must be trained, drilled and confident in their response — because when every second counts, agility is everything.

Business continuity doesn’t hinge on goodwill or improvisation, it depends on deliberate preparation, including operational alternatives and appropriate insurance cover. The rapid setup of an alternative stage, combined with a pre-planned logistical and artistic Plan B, ensured the festival could continue and the audience experience was preserved.

This proactive approach, supported by policies covering everything from material damage to lost revenue, shows that while prevention helps reduce impact, only anticipation with concrete solutions guarantees that the show can go on.

Not one-size-fits-all

In the workers’ compensation arena, prosthetics are often categorized as durable medical equipment (DME), like a wheelchair or crutches. However, this oversimplified approach is not in the best interest of either the injured worker or their employer. Simply sending an employee to their nearest orthopedist or prosthetics clinic is not likely to yield the best outcome or most cost-effective solution.

Here’s why: In the U.S., most amputations in the general population are of lower extremities. This is due to the prevalence of cardiovascular and circulatory conditions that hinder blood flow, especially to parts of the body far from the heart. When tissue dies due to lack of blood flow, it must be removed. In contrast, most work-related amputations are of upper extremities. Because people primarily work with their hands, the upper extremities are far more susceptible to workplace injuries — especially when handling heavy objects and operating dangerous machinery is part of the job.

Due to this disparity, U.S. providers of prosthetics and medical practitioners in related fields spend much of their time and training focused on lower extremities. Many providers do not have the experience needed to properly meet the short- and long-term care needs of an upper extremity amputee. A certified upper extremity specialist is best suited to help an injured worker get the right device (or combination of devices), heal physically and emotionally, return to work safely and productively, and function independently in all aspects of their lives. The sooner an injured worker can connect to the right specialist and be fitted for a device appropriate for their needs and stage of recovery, the better their chances of a positive claim outcome.

More is not always better

Some prosthetists see dollar signs when they learn a patient is a workers’ compensation claimant. They may get excited about the opportunity to fit an injured worker with the latest cutting-edge device, knowing the cost will be covered by the employer. 

However, the prosthesis with the highest price tag and the most bells and whistles is not necessarily what’s best for the amputee. Do the prosthesis’s features align with the employee’s stage of recovery, lifestyle, job responsibilities and physical capabilities? Are there specialists near the employee who can train them on how to use it, provide maintenance care, and perform physical/occupational therapy appropriate for the individual and their device? 

Understanding these nuances requires specialized expertise, beyond what most practitioners of medicine, utilization review and medical bill review are equipped to handle.

Innovating how workers recover

Recent advancements in prosthetic technology have introduced lightweight materials like carbon fiber and advanced polymers, which offer improved strength and flexibility. These innovations enhance comfort and functionality, especially for upper extremity amputees, and allow for greater customization in design and aesthetics.

Modern prosthetics now include myoelectric control systems and sensory feedback mechanisms. These technologies allow users to operate their devices with muscle signals and even experience tactile sensations, improving both safety and dexterity in daily tasks.

Surgical innovations such as osseointegration, where prosthetics are anchored directly to the bone, are gaining traction for their durability and improved range of motion. Additionally, virtual reality platforms are being used for pre-prosthetic training, helping injured workers visualize and practice using their devices before fitting.

AI-driven analytics are increasingly used to forecast prosthetic replacement cycles and rehabilitation outcomes. This helps employers and claims professionals plan more accurately for long-term care and reserve funding.

Timing is everything

On the flip side, it’s also not good when the employee does not receive a proper prothesis in a timely way. While not providing any device may at first glance appear to save the employer money, this can cause multiple issues. Without proper support and equipment, the employee may be inclined to simply learn how to do things without their amputated extremity; however, this can lead to serious safety concerns, especially on the job. A lack of motivation to adapt won’t yield the best outcome for the individual’s physical or emotional recovery. Further, it’s dangerous for the employee to have a weight imbalance in their upper body, as it can cause neck pain, scoliosis and other issues — and because these conditions stem from the original injury, they are covered under workers’ comp. It’s critical to get the right device on an injured employee within 90 days to keep recovery on track, promote acceptance of the prosthesis, and support a positive outcome.

Benefits of a workers’ comp prosthetics program

To protect their people and their financial interests, employers — especially those with employees at risk of catastrophic injury — have much to gain from adding a specialized prosthetics program to their managed care services for workers’ compensation. When a workplace accident involves a life-altering amputation, you want the right ancillary care experts on your side to support the employee and their family through every step on the difficult road ahead. An experienced team of prosthetic specialists works to ensure the employee receives just the right device(s) for their particular needs, knows how to use the equipment, and has the tools they need to return to work and productive living. (It’s worth noting that amputees have the highest return to work rate among employees who experience catastrophic injuries; they just need the right motivation and the right device to facilitate a smooth transition.)

A well-established prosthetics program gives injured workers access to a nationwide network of clinicians experienced in working with amputees, with the added benefit of strong relationships with the companies that manufacture and service prosthetic devices. Program coordinators help guide amputees so they know what to cover during their appointments; they also connect amputees with peer support, so injured employees can speak to others who truly relate to their circumstances.

Another significant advantage of a specialized prosthetics program is accuracy in reserve funding. Because amputation is a lifelong injury, the employer is responsible for providing lifetime medical care under workers’ comp. In addition to the high cost of the initial prosthesis, the device needs to be replaced approximately every five years. Replacements of sockets and liners, along with other clinical care, quickly add up to a lot of expenses. Having prosthetic experts involved in the claims process from the outset ensures the appropriateness of costs for devices and care, as well as projected costs based on the employee’s anticipated needs and lifespan.

Higher care is more than just replacement parts

A comprehensive prosthetics program is the right thing for employees experiencing a traumatic injury and for employers supporting them throughout the process. Enlisting specialized expertise in prosthetics is the best way to ensure an amputee receives the right device at a fair price, as well as the skilled care and empathy they need to resume living a full and productive life.

> Learn more — read about Sedgwick’s best-in-class prosthetics program, part of our suite of ancillary managed care services for workers’ compensation.

Absenteeism isn’t just a violation of attendance policies, it’s a significant problem for employers and employees alike. When someone doesn’t show up for work, managers may have to rush to fill their shift, or other employees may have to cover their work for them. Over time, absenteeism creates a dissatisfied or even hostile work environment where lower productivity, decreased morale and higher costs are the norm. 

Simply put, absenteeism impacts everyone in the workplace, and data shows that it’s not getting any better. So what’s driving this trend, and what can employers do to get ahead of it?

The current state of absenteeism

Human resources experts consider an acceptable absence rate, or the percentage of time an employee is absent from work, to be around 1.5%. In 2024, the national absence rate was 3.2%, up 0.10% from 2023. This increase in absences signals a growing challenge for employers across industries.

When employees are frequently absent, it takes a serious financial toll on employers. The CDC reports that absenteeism costs U.S. employers $225.8 billion annually, with Sedgwick data showing that lost productivity alone can reach $11,000 per employee each year. Beyond productivity losses, absenteeism also leads to operational downtime and forces employers to spend more on hiring, onboarding and overtime pay.

Absences today are also following a pattern. According to Sedgwick data, Mondays are the most common day for intermittent absences, with volume decreasing as the week goes on. Absence spikes are also common around major events and holidays. In fact, roughly 1 in 5 surveyed Americans reported planning to miss work the Monday after the 2025 Super Bowl. On that day, Sedgwick data shows that 9.5% of employees with an open intermittent absence case didn’t show up for work.    

What’s driving absenteeism today?

There are many reasons why employees may unexpectedly miss work. Sickness and injuries remain the leading cause of absences, especially in industries with physically demanding roles. However, even in office settings, seasonal illnesses and chronic conditions are forcing employees to take time off work without advanced notice. 

A lack of flexible work options and support systems is also contributing to absenteeism. When an employee struggles to find child care, needs to care for a loved one or has transportation issues, they may have to miss work that day if they don’t have a flexible work option. In 2024, more than 3.6 million absences in the U.S. were attributed to family or personal obligations. Sedgwick’s book of business in 2025 shows that 33.9% of leaves are for family reasons and 12.8% are personal, projecting 875,000 new family or personal leaves by the end of the year. This suggests that many employees today aren’t being given the support or flexibility they need to manage their life outside work — and it’s impacting their ability to show up.

Poor mental health is another key driver of absenteeism. Stress, anxiety and depression can significantly impact an employee’s ability to work consistently. Data shows that employees with poor mental health have nearly four times more unplanned absences within a year than others. And according to a Sedgwick study, 30% to 55% of employees with a mental health disability claim submit more than one claim in a 36-month period. Sedgwick also found that claims for mental health last 24% longer than the average claim. Together, these trends tell us that many employees aren’t getting the help they need during their leave — resulting in longer recoveries, higher relapse rates and more time away from work.  

How employers can manage absenteeism

While employers can’t control what happens in their employees’ personal lives, they can implement strategies to support them and help them better manage the problems they may be facing. Here are some ways employers can help keep absenteeism under control:

• Have regular check-ins with employees: There are often red flags for absenteeism before the pattern starts. Having consistent, informal check-ins with employees can help employers build trust, identify signs of burnout or stress and offer support before an absence occurs.
• Equip frontline managers with training and resources: Managers are often the first to notice any attendance patterns with their employees. Giving them the right tools and guidance can help them spot signs of absenteeism and know how to respond to unplanned absences while maintaining team morale.  
• Foster a culture of trust and flexibility: Employees with busy personal lives may benefit from flexible work options like remote work or alternative shifts. Additionally, offering mental health resources like counseling, peer support groups or colleague assistance programs can create a more supportive environment and help reduce absences.  
• Partner with a third party administrator (TPA): It can be difficult to manage absenteeism without the right tools, support and expertise. Finding a trusted TPA to help track time off, identify absence patterns and plan for disruptions can help employers stay ahead of absenteeism.

Simplifying the complexity of absences

Absenteeism isn’t just a disruption for employers – it can be a signal that something larger is going on. With absenteeism tied to so many factors, it can be hard to identify its cause and know how to respond. That’s why employers partner with our team at Sedgwick to simplify their employees’ absences for them. 

We work with employers to create comprehensive leave and disability management programs that help them stay compliant, reduce the impact of absences and maintain their workforces’ productivity. With mental health and well-being programs, return to work planning and accommodations support, we ensure employees get the help they need to return to or keep thriving at work. 

Our technology plays a critical role in making this possible. With AI-powered tools, our examiners can quickly identify opportunities for early intervention, like matching employees with modified work options or connecting them with clinical resources. But more importantly, these tools help our examiners be powerful advocates, guiding employees through a complex recovery process with empathy and care. Our technology streamlines workflows so examiners can spend less time on administrative tasks and more time supporting those in need. This not only improves return to work outcomes for employees but stronger program outcomes for our clients. 

Final thoughts

Absenteeism may be on the rise, but it doesn’t have to be a constant challenge. With the right strategies, resources and a trusted partner in place, employers can do more than just respond to absences – they can reduce them. By fostering a culture that supports well-being and flexibility, employers can empower their workforce to keep showing up, stay engaged and continue doing what they do best. 

To learn how Sedgwick can help administer leave and manage absences for your organization, click here. 

What Is proximate cause?

Proximate cause refers to the legal determination of whether a particular act or event is closely enough related to the resulting harm to justify holding someone legally responsible. It is not necessarily the first event in a chain of events, but rather the one that the law recognizes as the primary cause of the injury or damage.

This differs from actual cause (also known as “cause in fact”), which is based on a straightforward “but for” test: but for the defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred? Proximate cause adds a layer of legal judgment, asking whether the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the act and whether it is fair to hold the defendant accountable.

Why proximate cause matters

In liability claims, proximate cause is one of four essential elements that must be established for a loss to be compensable under tort law. These stage-gates include: (1) a duty owed, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) proximate cause linking the breach to the injury or damages, and (4) actual damages incurred. If any one of these elements is missing, liability cannot be established.

Proximate cause plays a critical role in determining whether the defendant’s actions are sufficiently connected to the harm suffered. Courts use it to distinguish between events that are legally relevant and those that are too remote or indirect. 

For example, if a driver runs a red light and causes a collision, and a nearby pedestrian, distracted by the commotion, steps into traffic and is struck by another vehicle, the proximate cause of the pedestrian’s injury is not the initial act of running the red light. Instead, the injury resulted from an intervening event that breaks the chain of legal causation.

Understanding proximate cause helps insurers and legal professionals determine whether a claim is compensable, how liability should be assigned and what damages may be recoverable.

Legal interpretation and foreseeability

One of the key elements in determining proximate cause is foreseeability. Courts ask whether a reasonable person could have predicted that the defendant’s actions might lead to the kind of harm that occurred. If the harm was unforeseeable or resulted from an extraordinary intervening event, the defendant may not be held liable.

For example, in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., a landmark case in American tort law, the court ruled that the railroad was not liable for injuries sustained by a woman standing at the far end of a train platform after an explosion occurred at the opposite end. While the explosion itself was triggered by a chain of events involving railroad employees, the court found that the injury fell outside the “zone of foreseeable danger.” This decision helped to establish the concept of “proximate cause” in tort actions.

Challenges in modern claims

Today’s claims environment presents new challenges in applying proximate cause. With increasingly complex systems, multiple parties, and evolving risks, determining the legal cause of damage is rarely straightforward. This is especially true in cases involving:

• Natural disasters and weather-related events
• Mechanical failures in aviation, automotive, or industrial equipment
• Cybersecurity breaches and data loss
• Construction defects and structural failures

In these scenarios, multiple contributing factors may be present, and distinguishing between actual and proximate cause requires careful analysis and understanding of jurisdiction specific precedence. 

The role of experts

Given the complexity of modern claims, expert analysis is often essential. Forensic engineers, environmental consultants and other specialists can help reconstruct events, identify contributing factors and provide defensible opinions on causation. Their insights are critical in helping insurers and legal teams understand what happened, why it happened and who may be responsible.

Practical implications for claims professionals

For those handling claims, understanding proximate cause is more than a legal exercise — it’s a practical necessity. It informs how investigations are conducted, how reserves are set and how negotiations are approached. It also plays a key role in litigation strategy and settlement discussions.

Claims professionals should be trained to recognize potential causation issues early, engage appropriate experts when needed and document findings thoroughly. This proactive approach can help avoid disputes, reduce litigation risk and ensure fair outcomes for all parties.

Final thoughts

Proximate cause remains a foundational concept in insurance and tort law, but its application continues to evolve. As claims grow more complex and courts refine their standards, staying informed about how proximate cause is interpreted is essential. By combining legal understanding with technical expertise, claims professionals can navigate causation issues with confidence and clarity.

No organization is immune. Regardless of industry or size, every company could be a potential target. However, with robust preventive measures and a structured response, businesses can significantly reduce the likelihood of an attack and minimize the consequences of a cyber incident.

Cybersecurity Starts with Understanding the Risk

Cybercriminals often act opportunistically. They rarely select their targets based on size, reputation, or revenue; instead, they exploit vulnerabilities. Poorly secured systems quickly become easy entry points for attackers.

The first step in strengthening protection is managing a company’s exposure online. This involves conducting regular security audits of all systems and applications — a practice that becomes even more critical when obtaining cyber insurance. Such proactive measures not only meet insurance requirements but also form the foundation of a company’s overall cyber resilience.

Effective protection also depends on several key measures:

• Using strong, unique passwords stored in password managers
• Enforcing multi-factor authentication (MFA), especially for applications accessible from outside the corporate network, such as email or VPNs
• Engaging employees in proper digital security hygiene, an often underestimated but essential factor in maintaining a strong security posture

Finally, fostering awareness and providing continuous training help employees recognize threats early and respond appropriately. Such vigilance is often the key to preventing minor incidents from escalating into serious breaches.

Crisis Response: Clarity and Speed Matter

In a cyber crisis, every second — and every decision — counts. Having a concise, easily accessible document with key contacts, such as the broker, insurer, and backup provider, helps accelerate response efforts and reduce potential damage.

Equally important is clear, factual communication. It enables a company to present key issues and necessary actions in a way that is easy to understand. Customers, employees, partners, shareholders, and regulatory authorities should be informed promptly and appropriately to ensure a coordinated and effective response.

Organizing crisis management exercises further strengthens readiness. These simulations help teams practice the required steps as soon as an incident is detected, including securing systems, documenting evidence, and notifying supervisory authorities, police, or gendarmerie within the established regulatory deadlines.

Data Backup: The Backbone of Recovery

Regular data backups, including offline copies, help limit the impact of an intrusion. In the event of an attack, affected systems should be disconnected from the external network and the backup media powered down to prevent further compromise.

By taking these measures, companies can better protect themselves against blackmail or ransom demands and resume operations more quickly after a cyberattack.

Why Paying a Ransom Is Not the Answer

Investigating the source of an attack is essential. It not only supports recovery efforts but also helps identify security gaps, enabling organizations to strengthen their defenses and reduce the risk of future breaches.

Once vulnerabilities are identified, the next challenge is deciding how to handle compromised data and restore access. In many cases, attackers demand a ransom in exchange for returning the data. However, paying a ransom offers no guarantees. It does not ensure the safe recovery or confidentiality of information and can also expose companies to legal, ethical, and financial risks.

Fortunately, alternatives exist. Specialized service providers can often recover most compromised data — even without prior backups — using advanced recovery technologies. These solutions allow organizations to regain control and restore operations without supporting criminal activity.

Conclusion: Security Is a Shared Responsibility

Cybersecurity today goes beyond IT — it touches every part of an organization. By identifying vulnerabilities, preparing for potential incidents, protecting critical data, and ensuring employees are well-informed, companies can strengthen their defenses and recover more effectively when challenges arise.

1. A WWII Bomb and the War Exclusion Clause

In a striking example of how the past can unexpectedly shape the present, a case involving the University of Exeter brought renewed attention to the complexities of insurance exclusions. In 2021, a WWII-era bomb was discovered and safely detonated in a controlled explosion. While the immediate event was managed with care, the resulting property damage led to a legal dispute over coverage.

The court ultimately ruled that the damage was excluded under the policy’s War Exclusion clause – not because the detonation itself was an act of war, but because the original cause (the bomb being dropped during WWII) was deemed the proximate cause of the damage. This interpretation, while legally sound, may feel counterintuitive to those affected.

Key Takeaway:

Even when damage occurs decades after an initial event, if the root cause is tied to an excluded peril like war, coverage may be denied. This case also highlights how courts interpret ‘concurrent proximate causes’ – if one is excluded, the entire claim may be rejected. It’s a reminder of how important it is to understand the fine print, especially in legacy or unusual scenarios.

2. Politically Motivated Arson: When Exclusions May Apply

In today’s complex global climate, politically motivated acts of violence and sabotage are, unfortunately, becoming more common – and their impact can be devastating. One recent incident involved a targeted arson attack on a commercial warehouse, resulting in significant property damage and business disruption. While the motivations behind such acts may be rooted in international conflict or political ideology, the consequences are felt deeply by the businesses and communities affected.

Insurance Implication:

Most commercial property policies exclude damage caused by terrorism, sabotage, or politically motivated acts unless specific terrorism coverage is in place. In cases like this, insurers may interpret the event as falling under one of these exclusions, which can complicate or even prevent a successful claim.

Key Takeaway:

If your business operates in a high-profile or politically sensitive space, it’s worth reviewing your policy and considering terrorism insurance as an added layer of protection. Being proactive can make all the difference in how quickly and fully you recover from an unexpected event.

3. Ideologically Charged Vandalism: Where Coverage Can Get Complicated

In recent years, we’ve seen a rise in activist-related demonstrations that result in property damage – from paint-splattered buildings to defaced signage and disrupted operations. While these acts may appear to be straightforward vandalism, their underlying motivations can introduce complexity when it comes to insurance coverage.

Insurance Implication:

Most standard commercial property policies cover malicious damage or vandalism. However, if an incident is deemed to be politically motivated – or if the group responsible is later designated as a terrorist organisation – insurers may invoke exclusions related to terrorism or sabotage. This can leave businesses unexpectedly exposed if their policies don’t explicitly include coverage for such risks.

Key Takeaway:

Again, if your organisation operates in a high-profile or politically sensitive space, it’s important to review your policy language carefully. Understanding how your coverage applies in these nuanced situations can help you prepare for the unexpected – and ensure you’re protected when it matters most.

Final Thoughts

These cases show that exclusion clauses are not just legal fine print, they can determine whether you receive a payout or not. As threats evolve, from war remnants to cyber sabotage and political or terrorist activism, it’s crucial to:

• Understand your exclusions
• Assess your risk exposure
• Consider specialist cover where needed

The average verdict now exceeds $51 million. These numbers are not just statistical anomalies; they represent a fundamental shift in how juries perceive corporate responsibility, how plaintiffs’ attorneys build their cases and how defense teams must respond.

What is fueling the explosion in verdict size?

Understanding the converging forces driving this trend is essential for any organization managing litigation risk.

1. Anti-corporate sentiment

Public trust in large institutions is eroding, and this sentiment is increasingly reflected in jury behavior. A 2024 Emerson College poll found that 41 percent of voters aged 18 to 29 viewed the actions of a CEO’s alleged killer as “somewhat or completely acceptable.” This is a stark contrast to the 68 percent of the general population who found the actions unacceptable. Younger jurors, who are more likely to be selected for jury duty, are bringing these attitudes into the courtroom.

2. Aggressive attorney marketing

The plaintiffs’ bar has embraced a full-spectrum marketing strategy. Attorneys are no longer limited to billboards and late-night television ads. They now dominate platforms like TikTok, YouTube and Instagram, reaching potential clients within minutes of an incident. Lead generation services offer real-time connections to attorneys, ensuring that claimants are speaking with legal counsel before they even contact an insurer.

3. Joint evaluation bias in multi-defendant cases

In lawsuits involving multiple defendants, jurors often compare defendants to one another rather than evaluating each independently. This cognitive bias, known as joint evaluation bias, can lead to disproportionate fault assignments and inflated awards. If one defendant appears more contrite or proactive than another, the jury may assign greater blame to the less sympathetic party, regardless of actual liability.

4. Legal system abuse

Tactics such as anchoring (suggesting high damage amounts), phantom damages (inflated medical billing) and third-party litigation funding are distorting the litigation process. These practices can manipulate jury perceptions and inflate award amounts far beyond what is reasonable or necessary.

The financial impact

The cost of defending against these verdicts is rising in tandem with the awards themselves. According to the Institute for Legal Reform, the average cost of defending personal injury lawsuits increased by 7.1 percent annually between 2016 and 2022. A Thomson Reuters survey found that defense firm rates rose another 6.5 percent through mid-2024.

This creates a double burden for insurers and businesses. They face higher costs to defend and higher payouts when cases go to trial. The result is a litigation environment that is increasingly unpredictable and financially unsustainable.

How to respond: a strategic playbook

To mitigate the risk of nuclear verdicts, organizations must adopt a more proactive and data-driven approach to litigation management. Here are four key strategies:

• Predictive modeling
  Use advanced analytics to identify high-severity claims early. Sedgwick’s modeling shows that less than 1 percent of claims drive the most severe outcomes. These claims should be routed into specialized workflows for early intervention.
• Data-driven attorney selection
  Choose defense counsel based on performance metrics, not just familiarity. Sedgwick’s Attorney Scorecard, for example, evaluates attorneys on duration, expense and outcomes to ensure the best fit for each case.
• Strategic coordination in multi-defendant cases
  Align messaging and strategy among co-defendants to avoid jury confusion and bias. Mock trials and jury focus groups can help test themes and identify potential pitfalls.
• Invest in jury profiling and trial preparation
  Understand the demographics, attitudes and biases of potential jurors. Behavioral insights are more predictive than age or education alone and can inform voir dire and trial strategy.

The verdict is in

Nuclear and thermonuclear verdicts are not going away. But with the right tools, insights and strategies, organizations can reduce their exposure and regain control over litigation outcomes.

Want to explore the full data and learn how to protect your organization from outsized verdicts?

Download the 2025 Liability Litigation Commentary for expert insights, trend analysis and actionable recommendations.

Insurers are working hard across the insurance sector to decarbonise their investment portfolios over the long term. While they’re successfully reducing carbon emission from their operations, the question remains of what’s next. The real elephant in the room is the carbon generated from building repairs, which dwarfs the emissions from the carbon from business operations. Although there are ongoing discussions about where responsibility for the carbon emissions sits, it’s up to us as an industry to find solutions together.

So, what can surveyors do to reduce the carbon impact of repairs?

Follow the green thread of sustainability all the way through the repair process by:

Maximising Restoration

Tony McAdams talked in the previous blog in the series about the drive to restore more: assuming that restoration might be possible rather than defaulting to replacement. As Tony explained, this takes the right mindset and skills applied to the claim and a desire to challenge the status quo.

 Maximising re-use

This can be building materials / contents / stock etc, which are damaged but have an economic or carbon value. It sounds obvious, but in the UK, we are entrenched in existing practices and far too much still goes to landfill or is incinerated to create electricity — negating this as a really effective  green solution due to the emissions it creates. The assumption is recycling gets done, but this tends to be for what has clear value and is easy to do. We need to start pushing to assume all waste should be recycled, even if it has an additional financial cost. Other countries in Europe are exemplars and we should look towards them for inspiration.

Using low carbon repairs

Alternative low carbon footprint products are being developed (e.g. paint and insulation), where a clear positive impact in reducing carbon can be demonstrated., However, as traditional building products can vary significantly in their carbon footprint, it is difficult to know where to focus your efforts in finding alternative lower carbon products. They key is to understand the typical or benchmark carbon footprint of a building product and then see what options are available which generate lower carbon. We use our bespoke carbon calculator to do this, which works in conjunction with our scheduling system to simplify the process.

However, there is much more to think about than just the carbon impact when making a change

1. When specifying a different product, the normal due diligence is needed to ensure it has all the key performance requirements — fire rating / impact of moisture / energy performance etc.
2. The alternative product may not be exactly the same (e.g. it may be thicker or require different fixings) which will have an impact on the whole design and specification.
3. The cost impact needs to be considered, although there may not be a significant impact, but new niche products tend to be more expensive. 
4. Finally, there is concern emerging about who holds the design liability when specifying new and innovative products, especially when they may not have all the certification of standard products.

Ultimately, it is a delicate balance of all these factors that needs to be considered in finding the right lower carbon repair solution.

Flood resilient repairs

Insurers and industry professionals can also help reduce the carbon footprint of a future flood claim by understanding the positive impact flood resilient repairs can have on future risk and damage. Over the last 5 years there have been improvement in standards and testing, with new Code of Practice, British Standards and improved testing of products. Funding is less of an issue now with the FloodRe Build Back Better Scheme, which is managed by insurers and provides up to £10,000 per flood event to design and install flood resilience products.

But what is the future benefit?

Research by Aviva into the impact of flood resilience, published in their Building Future Communities report, shows restoring a flooded home can create 13.9 tonnes of CO2 emissions (equivalent to six and a half return flights from London to New York). Emissions could be reduced by 64% through installing basic property flood resilience measures.

In summary

There is a need for upskilling our industry to capitalise on opportunities for lower carbon solutions in the repair process. We not only need to have the technical skills, but the ability to engage with customers to help them through the process.

The importance of reducing our carbon impact and increasing our carbon savings will inevitably escalate as the impact of global warming continues to drive extreme weather events. We must work in partnership throughout the supply chain to influence change and make a real difference.  

When a large property loss occurs, the initial response can be overwhelming. There is damage to assess, stakeholders to engage and decisions to make under pressure. But before jumping into action, it is essential to pause and ask the right questions. Doing so can save time, reduce costs and prevent missteps that complicate recovery.

Why questions matter

Every large-loss claim is unique. From hurricanes and floods to fires and explosions, the variables are endless. Asking targeted questions early in the process helps frame the project, define priorities and uncover hidden risks. It also sets the tone for collaboration and ensures that all parties — including adjusters, engineers, environmental consultants, legal teams and the insured — are aligned from the start.

What to ask and who to ask

The questions you ask should be tailored to the type of loss, the property involved and the stakeholders on the ground. Here are some key categories and examples:

1. Project-specific concerns

• What special considerations apply to this site or facility?
• Are there environmental sensitivities, regulatory constraints or operational dependencies?
• What are the immediate safety concerns?

These questions are best directed to the insured, site managers and environmental experts. Their insights help shape the initial response and guide expert assignments.

2. Scope and cost management

• What restoration cost categories are relevant, and how are they billed?
• What is the conceptual scope of work for repairs?
• Are there building code upgrades required?

These questions should be posed to building consultants, structural engineers and cost estimators. Understanding scope early helps avoid disputes and ensures that cost projections are realistic and defensible.

3. Expert engagement

• What experts are needed, and when should they be brought in?
• Are certifications required for environmental or structural assessments?
• Is litigation anticipated, and how should expert documentation be handled?

Claims professionals should work closely with internal teams and external vendors to determine the right mix of expertise. Early engagement, especially for environmental hygiene, structural safety and equipment preservation, is key to minimizing business interruption and preserving evidence.

4. Communication and documentation

• What are the insured’s concerns, and how are they being addressed?
• What deliverables are expected from each team member?
• How will meetings and decisions be memorialized?

Clear communication protocols should be established with all stakeholders. Adjusters and project leads should ensure that discussions are documented, deadlines are tracked and any changes in conditions are recorded.

Lessons from the field

Insights from Sedgwick’s presentation at the recent PLRB Claims Conference reinforced the importance of asking the right questions. In one case study involving a school fire, early questions about environmental hazards, structural integrity and code compliance helped guide a coordinated response that minimized delays and ensured safety.

The presentation also emphasized the value of process-driven communication. By framing the project from the beginning and following up with structured documentation, teams were able to maintain momentum and avoid costly misunderstandings.

Building a defensible file

Ultimately, asking the right questions is about building a defensible file. It is about proving the scope, validating the approach and demonstrating that every decision was made with care and expertise. In large-loss claims, where the stakes are high and scrutiny is intense, this level of diligence is not optional. It is essential.

Looking ahead

In our next installment, we’ll take a closer look at how to form the right team for large property loss claims. From selecting the right experts to defining roles and responsibilities, we will explore how thoughtful team composition can drive better outcomes and ensure every angle of the claim is covered.

This guide will identify steps to take in the event of an unexpected lawsuit.

Keep calm. Act quickly. Tell someone.

The moment the paperwork hits your hands; the clock is ticking. You have limited time to respond to the complaint and missing it could have serious consequences. Notify your insurance carrier and legal counsel as soon as possible so they have time to develop a defense and respond in a timely manner. Plus, almost all insuring/risk pool agreements require notice of actual claims. As an insured, don’t take any part of the defense into your own hands (e.g., retaining counsel, talking settlements, etc.)

In addition to the defense, your assigned counsel will help coordinate internal and external responses. Internally, he or she can investigate and evaluate risk control measures, then implement corrective actions to prevent problems and mitigate risk. Externally, he or she help coordinate public and media response, since lawsuits are public record and tend to draw attention. Your law director or legal counsel will want to discuss and agree on how to handle the media. From a risk management perspective, having a media policy and procedure in place before any lawsuits arise is recommended.  If there is a media policy in place, it is important to make individuals aware of the procedures contained in the policy. 

Preserve everything

The next step happens before you’re officially served — right about when your “sued senses” start tingling. As soon as litigation is reasonably anticipated, you must preserve evidence: emails, documents, videos, photos, tangible objects — anything that might be remotely relevant. Failure to do so could lead to serious repercussions like court sanctions or a damaged defense.

Your defense counsel will work to identify potentially relevant items, but your best bet is to keep it all. 

Be careful who you talk to

While public entities generally have the responsibility to be open and candid to the public, they still have the benefit of attorney-client privilege. If you’ve ever watched a legal show, you’ll know this means all communications between the attorney and the client are protected from disclosure during litigation.

This is a powerful but fragile tool. To protect it, make sure legal communications are kept separate from day-to-day emails and only shared with those who need to know. One accidental forward can waive privilege and expose sensitive strategy.

Get ready for the long haul

Lawsuits can be expensive. Not just financially draining, but draining on time, energy and human resources. Communicating with counsel, preserving evidence and gathering information all take a considerable toll. Trial appearances, depositions and document reviews mean you might need all hands on deck to respond.

Add in the fiscal impact, and a lawsuit can be a major drain on any entity. You’ll want to discuss with counsel the scope of what they’ll handle and weigh the benefits of minimizing costs with settlement negotiations.

12-point lawsuit response checklist

If you find yourself in a lawsuit, here’s a quick 12-point checklist you can reference for how to respond:

1. Notify your insurance carrier or claims representative.
2. Contact your legal counsel.
3. Alert your media relations team.
4. Prepare a public statement with legal input.
5. Preserve all evidence (videos, documents, emails, etc.).
6. Review the complaint to see who is being sued.
7. Identify your communication control group to maintain privilege.
8. Keep privileged documents separate from routine files.
9. Prepare for depositions.
10. Consider the impact on time and resources.
11. Identify and manage additional risk exposures.
12. Work with legal and risk teams to adopt future prevention measures.

The ball is in your court

Being sued is never easy and never fun — there’s a reason people love to turn it into a threat. But, with this guide, it doesn’t have to be a chaotic process. Preparation today can protect you tomorrow.

If you need help building a response plan or training your team, we can help. 

Business enablement and solutions

Business enablement places emphasis on forward planning, collaboration and continuous improvement. At its core, this approach seeks to empower all participants in the claims process by improving communication pathways and ensuring that stakeholders — including insurers, legal teams, government agencies and claimants — are equipped to make informed decisions. By understanding the key challenges for the specific event, recommendations are made which focus on enhance both the client and customer journey, particularly in understanding claims processes and providing clear, consistent information that supports transparency and trust throughout the event lifecycle. All the time assisting in managing the expectations of the stakeholders to the claim.

The power of stakeholder collaboration

Collaboration among stakeholders has proven to be one of the most impactful strategies during mass claim events. When government departments, insurers, legal teams, loss adjusters and technology providers work in unison, claims processes can become more efficient, productive, accurate and timely. Better outcomes are achieved when each stakeholder understands their role, communicates clearly and shares vital information. These efforts seek to minimise duplication of activity, ensure processes are carried out with consistency and accountability, and provide for visibility across one single source of data across the portfolio of claims being managed

Planning for the unpredictable

We know in catastrophic natural disasters and weather events planning and advance preparation are crucial. However, while many other types of mass claim events are sudden, unpredictable and unprecedented, the industry can often plan through scenario planning and response simulation. These planning efforts allow organisations to define response protocols, test technology systems, train teams and create communication frameworks that are ready to deploy when needed. Despite these preparations, challenges remain — especially when handling multiple claimants or managing complex information streams. A well-executed plan can make the difference between chaos and control in a critical response window.

Continuous improvement in response efforts

Even with comprehensive plans, mass claim events consistently present new challenges. From operational strain to financial risk and reputational pressures, response efforts must evolve in real time. It’s critical for organisations to reflect on past responses, capture lessons learned and apply those insights to future readiness strategies. Emphasising adaptability and agility can help mitigate the pressure that comes with large volumes of simultaneous claims.

The role of technology and innovation

Technology plays a central role in transforming mass claim event responses. From online claims portals to automated triage tools, technology offers the speed, accuracy and scalability needed to manage high claim volumes. 

Successful integration can include simple platforms that allow for rapid claim submissions, real-time status updates, and improved data capture. These tools don’t just help claimants navigate the process more easily — they provide insurers and loss adjusters with the information they need to respond efficiently and make timely, informed decisions

However, innovation is not without its obstacles.  Implementing new systems during a crisis is inherently difficult — requiring not only technical execution but also cultural and operational change. That’s why technology integration must be part of the preparatory phase, with tools built to be intuitive and deployable under pressure. Technology itself cannot think creatively. The innovation comes when the technology is combined with the relevant specialist expertise and capability to enable a tailored solution to be successfully implemented and deliver.

Streamlining assessment in high-volume claims

In events involving liability and compensation claims — such as product failures or public liability issues — assessment processes often become a bottleneck. One effective solution is the use of simple, accessible technologies that allow for streamlined assessments. Online forms, mobile photo uploads and automated document reviews can significantly improve turnaround times and reduce administrative burden. This approach ensures that even with large numbers of claimants, responses can remain timely, accurate, consistent and customer focused.

Addressing the complexities of class actions

Class actions present a different set of challenges. These cases are often legally complex, involve multiple touchpoints and require careful coordination between insurers, lawyers and claims specialists. Innovative digital tools have emerged to manage this complexity — including web-based triage platforms that can classify claims based on severity or eligibility. Collaboration with legal teams is crucial to ensure that claims are both fair and defensible, and that all regulatory requirements are met without unnecessary delays.

Managing product failures with industry-wide coordination

Product failures can lead to widespread claims in a short timeframe. In these cases, the industry must act as a unified front. Coordination between manufacturers, supply chain, insurers, legal advisors and service providers ensures consistent messaging, effective evidence gathering and a streamlined approach to resolution. Technology again plays a vital role, especially in gathering and storing evidence that may be needed for recall or legal proceedings. A shared commitment to transparency and timely communication is essential to maintaining trust and credibility.

A technology-enabled future

The future of mass claim handling will increasingly rely on seamless technology implementation. Rapid response systems, integrated platforms and automated workflows not only improve efficiency but also significantly enhance the customer experience. When technology is deployed with a strategic lens — aligned with stakeholder goals and supported by operational readiness — the benefits are far-reaching.

Conclusion

Mass claim events will always present a degree of unpredictability and complexity. However, through stakeholder collaboration, technology integration and continuous improvement and innovation, organisations can rise to the challenge. All the time ensuring focus on client an customer needs. At Sedgwick, our team has deep experience managing mass claim events across a wide range of sectors. From product recalls to natural disasters and weather events, as well as class actions and complex liability events, we understand what it takes to deliver fast, fair and effective outcomes for all involved.

To learn more about our mass claim event solutions, or to discuss how we can support your organisation in future events, please contact louise.patterson@sedgwick.com