Client Insight Report

Client Insight Report For: May 26 th, 2015 Powered By:

Table of Contents Insured Program Scorecard... 3 Program Benchmarking and Large Losses by LOB... 4 General Liability... 4 Umbrella/Excess... 6 Employment Practices... 10 Appendix... 14 Explanation of Benchmark Results... 14 Glossary of Terms... 15 Understanding Benchmarking... 15 About Our Data Sources... 16 2

Insured Program Scorecard General Liability Employment Practices** Rate per Million Rate Metrics Premium Per Unit of Exposure Limit Per Unit of Exposure Limit Metrics MSCAd claims above limit Key: Red Light Criteria: Rate Per Million High compared to peer group Premium as a % of Exposure High compared to peer group Limit as a % of Exposure Limits are low MSCAd above limit Limits are low relative to comparable losses Exposure: * Market Capitalization for public companies. * Revenue for private companies. ** Employee Count All Others Revenue 3

Program Benchmarking and Large Losses by LOB General Liability & Umbrella/Excess Program Benchmarking 4

5

6

7

The chart displays the likelihood that a large loss (above $100K) will be at least the amount shown. For example, if a company has a loss of more than $100K, there is a 5% chance that this loss will be more than $20M. Therefore clients regularly suffering large losses (1 per year) will have a loss greater than $20M in 1 out of every 20 years (5% probability). Combining a company s loss history, current limit and risk tolerance regarding the above chart will determine their indicated additional limit needs. Note: The results above are most applicable to mid-to-large market companies, but not to the biggest companies within an industry. The peer group industry shown is based on companies whose 1-digit SIC code is the same as the client s Large Losses Impacting the General Liability & Umbrella/Excess Coverage of Similar Companies Company Name Category/Type Accident Date Filing Date Status Total Amount ($) Leslie Controls, Inc. Products/Exposure/Consumption 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 Award $35,100,000 Man Blamed Mesothelioma on Pump and Valve Manufacturers: On January 2007, plaintiff John R. Davis, 74, retired, was diagnosed with terminal pleural mesothelioma. During the Korean War, he worked as a fireman and boiler tender on the U.S.S. DeHaven. After leaving the U.S. Navy, Davis worked for American Pipe & Steel and then Sound Control Company before he took a job with Shell Oil on 1956. Davis worked in Shell Oil's California refineries until 1963. Davis moved back to his home state of Idaho in 1964 and worked for Philip Petroleum and successive contractors at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) until he retired on 1995. Davis sued the number of pump and valve equipment manufacturing companies that produced products with asbestos. All of the companies settled with the exception of Leslie Controls, Tampa, Fla., and Warren Pump, Warren, Mass. Plaintiff's counsel alleged that Davis had developed mesothelioma from contact with asbestos-coated gaskets, insulation and packing used in conjunction with Leslie Controls and Warren Pump equipment, including pumps and valves. This occurred during his time in the Navy, at Shell and at INEEL. Defense counsel argued that the Navy was liable for Davis' mesothelioma and, also, that exposure to radiation while he was working at INEEL contributed to Davis' mesothelioma. Warren Pump alleged that the asbestos in its products was encapsulated with metal. Counsel noted that Davis had been shown pictures of the pumps and couldn't identify them. In summation, Warren Pump argued that there were 24 tons of asbestos insulation throughout the destroyer that Davis had worked on while in the Navy and it was unlikely that exposure to asbestos from one of the pumps had caused Davis' injuries. Davis developed terminal pleural mesothelioma. Counsel asserted that Davis' medical bills would total $100,000. Plaintiff's counsel argued that the typical mesothelioma 8

patient dies within one year of diagnosis. Based on that projection, counsel argued that Davis would die eleven years prematurely and suggested to the jury that $18 million was an appropriate sum to award him and his wife for the years they would not be able to enjoy together. Also, his wife claimed loss of consortium. Counsel for Leslie Controls contended that the amount of pain and suffering damages that plaintiff's counsel was seeking was excessive, suggesting that $1.8 million was a more appropriate figure. The jury found that both Leslie Controls and Warren Pipe and Supply Company were each 7.1% liable for Davis' cancer. They awarded Davis $25.1 million and his spouse $10 million for loss of consortium. The plaintiffs netted a total of $5,070,000 from the two companies. The $100,000 awarded to Davis for medical damages was reduced by the offsets from settlements with the other defendants. Janette Davis: $10,000,000 Personal Injury: loss of consortium. John R. Davis: $100,000 Personal Injury: Past Medical Cost. $25,000,000 Personal Injury: pain & suffering. Wheelabrator Corporation, The Products/Products Usage 12/23/2005 12/23/2005 Award $20,000,000 Guillermina Leyva sued Wheelabrator Corporation on a products liability theory for the injuries she sustained when her arm was crushed when it got caught in a piece of equipment. She underwent 12 surgeries before trial and claimed that two more would be required. The blood vessels dominate right arm were torn away and she lost the use of the arm. The specifics of the claims made by the plaintiff are not available. The defenses asserted by the defendant are not available. Rhino Linings Corporation Services & Operations/Business/Service Site, Premises, Situation 07/28/2001 07/28/2001 Award $12,762,238 Company Operated Without Permit Or Fire Safety Systems: Plaintiff Kendall Mann, 38, a sales manager, sustained a burn injury during a fire on premises operated by his employer, Rhino Linings of Santa Fe Springs (Rhino SFS). Rhino SFS is a facility which sprays pickup truck beds with a protective, plastic bed liner. It acted as a dealer for Rhino Linings USA (Rhino USA). Rhino USA supplies its dealers nationwide with all equipment and chemicals used in the process. In 1999, Rhino SFS was ordered to get a spray booth by the city of Santa Fe Springs Fire Department. Rhino SFS, with the alleged knowledge of Rhino USA, ignored the fire department's orders and conducted the business without a permit. On July 28, 2001, when the Rhino SFS applicators had just finished spraying a truck, a fire started at an exhaust fan located in the spray area. Mann jumped in the newly sprayed truck and drove it outside the building. He then attempted to re-enter the building, believing his two co-employees were still inside. As he re-entered the building, Mann suffered burns. The fire spread to a next-door business, Hose-Man Inc., Irwindale. Mann and Hose-Man Inc sued Rhino Santa Fe Springs and its owners John Daniels Williams and Steven Stuart Simon, and Rhino Linings USA, San Diego, contending that Rhino USA negligently trained, managed and authorized their dealership, Rhino SFS. Furthermore, they contended that the operation was conducted without appropriate fire safety systems and the required permit for a spray booth. Rhino USA claimed no liability for its dealership and no knowledge of the dealership's operation without a permit. It claimed that Mann was negligent for re-entering the burning building. Mann sustained burn injuries to his hands, arms, head, neck and back, approximately 20% of his total body surface area. Mann claimed past medical expenses of $558,000; future medical expenses of $178,000 and past lost earnings of $36,000. Hose-Man made a property damage claim. Hose-Man Inc. operated an adjoining business and sustained property damage only. The jury found for Mann and Hose-Man. It awarded Mann $11,272,238 and Hose-Man $1,490,000. Rhino Linings USA and Rhino Linings SFS were each found 50% at fault. No comparative fault was found with regard to Mann. Hose-Man Inc. $1,490,000 Personal Injury: Property Damage. Omega Flex Inc Products/Products Usage 11/15/2004 Settled $10,200,000 On November 15, 2004, Matt Lovelis, Roger Wingfield, Mark Bledsoe and Donnie Sealy (collectively, plaintiffs) filed a class action complaint against Titeflex Corporation, Ward Manufacturing, Inc., OmegaFlex, Inc., and Parker Hannifin Corp. (collectively, defendants) in the Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas. The suit alleged that defendants' corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) products were defective and prone to accidents. The nationwide class action was filed on behalf of any and all persons and entities that own structures in the United States in which CSST was installed as of September 5, 2006. The class alleged that the installation and incorporation of CSST into class' properties poses an unreasonable risk of fire due to lightning strikes. The suit claims strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty. The class sought to recover monetary and injunctive relief as well as legal fees. On January 3, 2005, defendant OmegaFlex removed the case to the federal district court but was subsequently remanded to state court. On September 5, 2006, defendants agreed to settle the suit to avoid further cost. Under the Settlement Agreement, the defendants agreed to pay the value of each payment voucher redeemed by a class member for the installation of a lightning protection system or bonding and grounding of the defendants' CSST product. The amount of the Payment Voucher shall be determined based on the Lightning Density Zone for the geographical region in which the Property is located, the size of the home, and the remedy selected. With regards to the class counsel fees, Titeflex shall be responsible for payment not to exceed $11,611,111; OmegaFlex shall pay $10,200,000; Ward for payment of $6,333,334; and Parker Hannifin for over $1,055,555. The court gave final approval to the Settlement Agreement on February 1, 2007. Hussmann International, Inc. Services & Operations/Automotive/Vehicle 04/11/2008 01/01/2009 Award $9,341,770 Two Fresno women sued Missouri-based Hussmann Corp. (Hussmann) in Fresno County Superior Court after suffering from serious injuries in a rear-end collision on Highway 180 in Fresno on April 11, 2008. Susan Lutz and Clarice Brewer sued Hussmann on negligence theories claiming that a Hussmann employee failed to exercise due care in the operation of a semi-tractor trailer rig that he was driving and, as a direct result, the track ran into the rear of the vehicle in which they were riding injuring them. Jason Mudford was driving a company truck east on Highway 180 when he made an unsafe lane change and rear-ended Lutz's pickup at 55 mph at the Clovis Avenue offramp. The impact pushed Lutz's pickup into the rear of Brewer's van. According to the complaint, Lutz suffered a brain injury and will have vertigo for the rest of her life. Brewer can no longer walk because of the collision and uses a wheelchair, according to her husband. On October 21, 2010, the court awarded more than $9 million in damages to Lutz and Brewer. The panel awarded Lutz about $981,770 for medical expenses and past and future wage loss and $1 million for pain and suffering. Brewer was awarded about $2.36 million for past and future medical expenses and $5 million for pain and suffering. 9

Employment Practices Program Benchmarking 10

11

Company Name Large Losses Impacting the Employment Practices Coverage of Similar Companies Category/Type Accident Date Filing Date Status Total Amount ($) The Toro Company Employment/Wrongful Termination 09/27/1999 03/03/2000 Award $30,475,000 On Sept. 27, 1999, Steven Jones suffered second-degree burns in a work-related accident. Jones, 35, was a process technician for The Toro Co., a Minnesota-based maker of landscape-care tools and equipment. The day after the injury, the company allegedly suspended Jones without pay, saying that it wanted to investigate the incident. The same day, however, Toro allegedly terminated Jones' uniform service, and three days after the injury, he was fired, Jones said. Jones sued the company for wrongful discharge and retaliation in violation of Texas Labor Code chapter 451, which prohibits firing an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim. The evidence showed that Jones was a 15-year employee, had an exceptional work history, and received a promotion and pay raise one month before his termination, said his attorney, John A. Wenke. Also, a former supervisor testified that the human-resources manager would tell management to watch injured workers closely, document problems and find reasons to terminate them. The company claimed that Jones was fired for refusing, on the day of the injury, to take a drug test. There was no evidence, said Wenke, that the company requested a drug test after this injury, and the plaintiff had taken and passed two random drug tests in the previous year. Wenke introduced evidence that at least 53 employees who suffered work-related injuries did not subsequently take a drug test, and that the company fired none of them. Plaintiff Asks For $30,475,000. The plaintiff sought $30 million in punitive damages, $300,000 for mental anguish, $25,000 for past lost pension benefits and $150,000 for future lost pension benefits. Jury Awards All Requested Damages. After a four-day bifurcated trial with two-and-a-half hours of deliberation, a unanimous jury found that the defendant terminated the plaintiff because of his workers' compensation claim. The jurors awarded $30,475,000, comprising $25,000 for past benefits, $150,000 for future benefits, $300,000 for mental anguish, and $30 million in punitive damages. The punitivedamages deliberations took only 30 minutes. The plaintiff demanded $90,000 before trial; the defense offered $7,500.The defense attorneys could not be reached for comment. Dycom Industries Inc. Employment/Wage and Hour 01/01/2003 03/07/2003 Settled $10,000,000 A wage and hour lawsuit was filed against Dycom Industries and three of its subsidiaries UtiliQuest LLC, STS LLC and Locating Inc. units. The suit stated that the wage and hour claims were filed between 2003 and January 2007, and covered several states where the subsidiaries did business. Sources close to the case stated that the companies, though denying the allegations, agreed to settle the lawsuit with a $10 million payout. Dycom, which expects actual payments to be less than the gross settlement amount, is currently evaluating appropriate charges for its financial statements. It will post a related charge in the quarter ended Jan. 26, 2008. Company officials claimed that after settlement of litigation, the company has revised their procedures to avoid further lawsuits. On July 28, 2008, a federal judge in Ocala, Florida, issued a final judgment approving a ten million dollar gross settlement of overtime wage claims of utility locators who worked for companies across seventeen states. In the lawsuit, locators employed to locate and mark utility lines sought pay for work performed at home at the beginning of the day and during meal periods; for time spent traveling each day to their first location site and home from their last location site, and for work performed at home at the end of the day. It involves claims dating from 2003 through January 31, 2007 and covers a number of states where these subsidiaries conducted business. The eventual opt-in percentage and accordingly the actual payments to class members are difficult to predict. It is believed that the count will cover up to 800 employees. Liebherr-America, Inc Employment/Discrimination & Harassment: Racial 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 Settled $4,000,000 Twenty-six black employees at a Newport News truck factory reached a $4 million racial discrimination settlement with their employer, Liebherr America Inc. (Liebherr), one of the largest such settlements or jury verdicts in Virginia history. The employees had accused Liebherr of subjecting them to a hostile work environment on account of their race, including allowing workers and management to humiliate them with numerous taunts and racial epithets -- including the charge that a white employee brought in a noose and held it over several black employees' heads. It also accused Liebherr of paying them less than qualified white employees and treating them worse than white employees when it came to breaks, vacation and work conditions. Signal International, LLC Employment/Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act 07/01/2009 02/24/2010 Award $1,657,525 On February 24, 2010, Philip A Davis and Byron Day (plaintiffs) filed a class action complaint against Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC and Signal International Texas, LP (defendants) in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division alleging that between July and September of 2009 the company laid off 159 full-time workers from two facilities in Orange, Texas without prior written notice. According to the complaint, Plaintiff was employed full time as the purchasing manager for Defendants at their Orange, Texas facility. During the months of August 2009 and September 2009, Defendants announced they would be terminating employees. Plaintiff was terminated and on information and belief, at least 50 employees were terminated effectively immediately. Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated persons, were terminated by Defendants during the months of August 2009 and September 2009, and did not receive the notice require by the WARN Act. The complaint charged the defendants with violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). On June 17, 2011, the court ordered granting defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas. On December 7, 2012, the court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff awarding plaintiff the amount of $1,087,135.47 in back pay and benefits, the amount of $450,000.00 in attorneys' fees and the amount of $120,389.18 in prejudgment interest. The defendants appealed. On October 15, 2013, the US Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court. 12

Air Guide Corporation Employment/Discrimination & Harassment: Gender/Sexual 06/01/2000 09/30/2002 Settled $1,000,000 The plaintiffs in interest, three Cuban female laborers for Airguide Corp., a Hialeah-based manufacturer of heating and air conditioning parts, claimed that, beginning in the summer of 2000, they were subjected to sexual harassment by a new supervisor at the factory. The women claimed that the supervisor said that he would like to see what was under their skirts, told them that he masturbated while thinking about them, and could do a better job of sexually satisfying them than their husbands. At other times, he would refer to them using derogatory terms for the female anatomy, the plaintiffs claimed. They said that they complained to management several times about the harassment, but no action was taken against the alleged harasser. The EEOC investigated, and, after the women participated, they were subjected to retaliation in the form of hostility and write-ups for poor job performance. One woman was fired and another was forced to quit, the EEOC alleged. The other plaintiffs in interest, four male Cuban workers, claimed that there was a wage disparity between themselves and a white employee. When the EEOC investigated their complaint, they claimed that they were subjected to retaliation for their complaint and also for their participation in the EEOC's investigation of the women's claims. The men received write-ups, despite years of positive past work performance, and all four were eventually fired. The EEOC sued Airguide and its parent, Pioneer Metals Inc., Hialeah, under 42 USC 1983. On behalf of the women, the EEOC sued for sexual harassment and retaliation. On behalf of the men, the EEOC sued only for retaliation. The wage disparity claim was not pursued. The women claimed that they were subjected to sexual harassment on an ongoing basis. They claimed that they were retaliated against for filing an EEOC complaint, and that one was eventually fired while another was constructively discharged. The men claimed that they were subjected to harassment and fired in retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC and/or for their assistance in the EEOC's investigation of the women's claims. While the plaintiffs' individual wages were not disclosed, an EEOC attorney said that they were generally low-wage employees. The parties settled, with the defendants agreeing to pay $1 million. The allocation for each plaintiff in interest will be determined by the EEOC. The settlement also requires the defendants to conduct annual training at its 19 facilities throughout Florida and undergo monitoring by the EEOC for the duration of a three-year consent decree. 13

Appendix Explanation of Benchmark Results General Liability Rate per Million The Insured s General Liability Rate per million is in the Low Middle range compared to the selected peer group. Among possible reasons: The insured may have experienced relatively fewer or smaller historical losses than the peer group (see Advisen's MSCAd Large Losses for industry loss examples). If the insured has a relatively higher deductible/retention. If the coverage being purchased is easy to obtain or bundled with other coverages based on the company's industry, location, or other characteristics. If the insured is of a significantly larger size relative to the peer group then "economies of scale" may be an issue. The insured may have a low risk profile compared to the selected peer group. Employment Practices Rate per Million The Insured s Employment Practices Rate per million is in the Low range compared to the selected peer group. Among possible reasons: If the insured has a relatively high deductible, since the cost of limits typically decreases the further they are from the primary layer. If the insured is buying relatively larger limits or is significantly larger than the peer group, economies of scale may be a factor. The Insured may not have experienced historical losses (see Advisen's MSCAd Large Losses for industry loss examples). The Insured may have a low risk profile compared to the selected peer group. See Advisen Company QuickView. Premium Per Employee The Insured s Employment Practices Premium Per Employee is in the Low range compared to the selected peer group. Among possible reasons: - If the insured has a relatively high attachment point, since the cost of limits typically decreases the further they are from the primary layer. - If the coverage being purchased is easy to obtain or bundled with other coverages based on the company's industry, location, or other characteristics, this could cause the RPM to be higher. - The Insured may not have experienced large historical losses (see Advisen's MSCAd Large Losses for industry loss examples). - If insured is of significantly larger size relative to the peer group then "economies of scale" may be an issue. - The insured may have placed their business during a particularly price-competitive period in the market cycle. - The Insured may have a low risk profile compared to the selected peer group. See Advisen Company QuickView. 14

Glossary of Terms Federal Litigation: The cases filed against the company in Federal Court. This information comes from LexisNexis Large Losses: In this report, Large Losses are sourced from Advisen s Master Significant Case & Action database (MSCAd) and are matched to the line of coverage being benchmarked. MSCAd compiles details and statistics on significant large losses, including management liability cases such as securities class actions, auditing and other management malpractice, state and federal government regulatory fines, employment liability cases and errors and omissions litigation. This also includes EEOC settled litigation, ERISA/Fiduciary Duty, Malpractice, Anti-Trust, Fraud, Trade Practices, and Contract Cases. Advisen s MSCAd is the most comprehensive, accurate source of this data available to the industry. Our information is compiled by a dedicated research team using numerous sources such as Stanford Securities, Federal agencies such as the Department of Justice, the EEOC, and the Securities & Exchange Commission, research tools such as LexisNexis, major law firms and claims administrators, State insurance commissioners and attorneys general, and other sources. The consolidated data is subject to ongoing review and rigorous audit procedures to ensure both accuracy and timeliness. Understanding Benchmarking Insurance Program Pricing In program benchmarking, you compare the financial aspects of a specific industry's insurance program to programs for comparable peer companies. The end result, in graphic format, lets you see how the program you're looking at stacks up against this peer group, with respect to premiums, limits, and retentions. Histograms The histogram, or bar, charts for premiums, limits, and retentions provide a good tool to evaluate the characteristics of the peer group you have chosen, and to illustrate where the benchmarked client falls with respect to these peers. These charts divide the premiums, limits, and retentions into equally-spaced ranges (distributions) based on their sizes; the length of the bars show what % of the peer programs fall into each of these ranges (if provided, the benchmarked client's data is shown as a red line overlaying the bars). The 3 available charts are independent - that is, the premium chart displays premiums for the selected peer group REGARDLESS OF the limits purchased or the retentions kept. The limits chart displays the limits purchased REGARDLESS of the premiums paid or the retentions, etc. Range Charts ( Quartile Graphs") The range charts show the range of values, for a variety of different rates which may be calculated for the peer group. These rates provide a more sensitive indicator as to the relative size of the premiums, limits, and retentions in the peer group data, and where the benchmarked company falls, by minimizing the size differences between the peer group members. The charts illustrate the middle 50% of the calculated rates, but use the entire peer programs which contain BOTH of the values used to calculate the rates. 15

Rate per million Based on the Rate per Million it appears the target insured is overpaying but, based on the Limit per Revenues, the real issue is they are under purchasing. If they add to their current limit they will move the Limit per Revenues black line to the right. The insured will purchase this layer at a much lower rate per million than the current. This will drive the black line to the left on the Rate Per Million chart. About Our Data Sources Advisen utilizes three external content partners as the primary sources to create and maintain the Advisen Master File database (AMFd), and supplements these sources with four regional / industry-focused partners -- McGraw-Hill Financial (CompuSTAT), ThomsonReuters, and Dun & Bradstreet are the primary sources, with ICC, Owens Media, AM Best, and Experian as the supplemental sources. The Advisen Master File database (AMFd) includes the "core" characteristics on 16mm entities: name, address, latitude/longitude, phone number, web-site, industry / SIC code, annual sales, number of employees, place of incorporation, DUNS #, FEIN #, type (public, private, private formerly public, etc.), status (active/inactive), ultimate parent, executives/officers/directors. Furthermore, Advisen conducts primary research and quality assurance testing into the core characteristics for thousands of the entities in the AMFd, specifically those engaged in insurance actions (e.g. subjected to large losses), corporate actions (e.g. M&A, bankruptcy, divestiture, LBO), and those within our client's books-of-business (e.g. up for renewal / about to be underwritten). Finally, Advisen intersects other company demographics and unique exposures from a number of additional, external content partners such as Dow Jones, Factset, RiskMetrics/ISS/CFRA, Morningstar, CMA Datavision, and a multitude of government websites such as BLS, OSHA, FDA, and NTSB. 16