Self-driving automobiles and insurance coverage, with Ryan Stein

What are the assumptions baked into our auto insurance coverage insurance policies, and the way do self-driving automobiles problem them? Ryan Stein from Insurance coverage Bureau of Canada (IBC) seems on the implications that self-driving automobiles have on at present’s auto insurance coverage legal guidelines.


  • On this episode of the Accenture Insurance coverage Influencers Podcast, we converse with Ryan Stein from the Insurance coverage Bureau of Canada (IBC).
  • At present, people account for 90 % of auto accidents—an assumption that’s baked into auto insurance coverage insurance policies world wide.
  • Our present auto insurance coverage insurance policies aren’t geared up to cope with self-driving automobiles. Notably, if the auto producer or expertise had been deemed accountable for an accident, injured events may find yourself negotiating product legal responsibility insurance coverage, which is extra advanced than auto insurance coverage.
  • Auto insurance coverage insurance policies had been challenged by the sharing financial system, and insurers can study from that have to proactively redefine auto insurance coverage for the arrival of self-driving automobiles.

Introducing the Accenture Insurance coverage Influencers podcast

Insurance coverage hasn’t modified a lot in 200 years, however every little thing round it has. The bottom beneath insurers’ toes is shifting on daily basis, posing challenges—and creating alternatives.

We’re excited to announce the launch of the Insurance coverage Influencers podcast from Accenture. In season one, we handle a few of the massive questions on insurers’ minds. How will synthetic intelligence (AI) change insurance coverage? How can insurers innovate extra successfully? And the way can expertise allow fraud detection?

What self-driving automobiles imply for insurance coverage, with Ryan Stein

Our first visitor is Ryan Stein, the manager director of auto insurance coverage coverage and innovation at Insurance coverage Bureau of Canada (IBC). First, we talked to Ryan about self-driving automobiles and why they don’t match into at present’s auto insurance coverage legal guidelines. Subsequent, Ryan mentioned an IBC working paper that outlines a two-part framework for a way insurers, governments and regulators can replace insurance coverage legal guidelines to accommodate self-driving automobiles. And at last, we checked out normal ideas for ensuring that insurance coverage legal guidelines are geared up to maintain up with rising applied sciences.

The next transcript has been edited for size and readability.

Inform me about Insurance coverage Bureau of Canada (IBC). What’s its position throughout the insurance coverage business in Canada?

IBC is the nationwide commerce affiliation for Canada’s property and casualty insurance coverage firms. We work with our members to look at the political and regulatory atmosphere, and see if there are methods of enhancing it for the good thing about insurance coverage clients throughout the nation.

I’m trying ahead to asking you about autonomous autos and what meaning for the insurance coverage business. I wish to begin with what individuals imply after they discuss autonomous autos. I perceive that there are literally 5 designated ranges. Might you fill in our listeners who aren’t accustomed to them already?

The 5 ranges of auto autonomy—you possibly can truly say that there are six, as a result of there’s stage zero—come from the Society of Automotive Engineers.

  • Degree zero isn’t any automation. The motive force is in full management of the car always.
  • Degree one has some driver help, like pace or cruise management.
  • Degree two can take management of each the car pace and lane place in some conditions—as an example, on a freeway.
  • Degree three is proscribed self-driving, so the car will be in full management in some conditions. It could actually monitor the highway and visitors and may inform the motive force when she or he must take management of the car.
  • Degree 4 is absolutely self-driving below sure circumstances. It may very well be a sure space, sure climate circumstances or sure roads the place the car can deal with all of the driving capabilities.
  • Degree 5 is full self-driving. The car can do just about every little thing with out the human needing to take management.

IBC lately revealed a paper on what you seek advice from as automated autos. I’ve additionally heard the business seek advice from autonomous autos. Are these primarily the identical factor?

Sure and no. Autonomous just about implies that the automobile drives itself. I like to make use of the phrase “automated” as a result of you possibly can discuss autos that also require people to play some management within the driving operation. They’ve automated capabilities, however they won’t be absolutely autonomous.

That brings us to the insurance coverage business and a few of the assumptions throughout the insurance coverage business that automated autos could not match into. What are a few of these underlying assumptions that we’ve constructed into our present fashions of auto insurance coverage?

The principle assumption is that human error is the first reason for collisions. The tort legal guidelines, legal responsibility legal guidelines and the legal responsibility protection that folks purchase is all based mostly on this notion that people trigger collisions. And that’s as a result of proper now, people are accountable for over 90 % of collisions. So it is sensible that auto insurance coverage legal guidelines—and the protection that comes from them—will all be based mostly on that.

These assumptions about auto insurance coverage have been in place for some time and up to date improvements have challenged them. So, for instance, the sharing financial system, ride-sharing and car-sharing. How had been these a problem to the non-public auto business?

Previous to the sharing financial system, the insurance coverage legal guidelines had been written in a really particular approach. Mainly:

  1. An individual owned a car.
  2. That car was predominantly used for private or industrial functions.
  3. The proprietor of that car was the one who purchased the protection.

Every car just about had one coverage on it, and that coverage can be private or industrial—though you could possibly purchase non-compulsory merchandise for those who had been utilizing your car for industrial functions typically.

After which the sharing financial system and ride-sharing companies got here, and it began blurring the strains between private and industrial. Individuals had been utilizing their car for ride-sharing functions. The ride-sharing firms wished to have the ability to provide a second coverage to these autos to cowl the ride-sharing, for when the ride-sharing app is on till the ride-sharing app is off. However folks that signed up for ride-sharing companies didn’t actually wish to exit and purchase a separate coverage, or perhaps their insurance coverage firm that bought their private coverage didn’t provide this ride-sharing coverage. So for that second coverage to be supplied by a special entity—the ride-sharing firm, not the person car proprietor—you wanted legislative and regulatory modifications.

And now, since you had been going to have two insurance policies on a car, you wanted guidelines or processes to handle claims. If a collision occurred with a kind of autos, it wanted to be straightforward to determine which insurance coverage firm pays. Was the app on or off? After figuring out that, you could possibly transfer ahead with the claims course of. So it was an instance of insurance coverage legal guidelines needing to be up to date—to accommodate a special kind of auto use in a special kind of enterprise mannequin.

Proper. And it strikes me that there are plenty of similarities to what we’re now with automated autos. Plenty of the dialog has been in regards to the shift from a private auto coverage to certainly one of product legal responsibility. Particularly, if there’s an accident, and it was a automobile that may drive itself, was it the motive force or was it the producer? Are you able to discuss a few of the different implications for insurance coverage?

Proper now, people are accountable for greater than 90 % of collisions and all of the auto insurance coverage legal guidelines and protection is predicated on that. So proper now, if there’s a collision, individuals go to their very own insurance coverage firm they usually get sure advantages, and in the event that they want extra they usually weren’t accountable for the collision, they’ve a possibility to pursue a legal responsibility declare or sue the particular person accountable. With motorcar claims, there are tens of hundreds of them a 12 months, and you determine, OK, what the trigger and was who at fault? From that, right here’s how a lot will get paid out for the declare.

However in a world the place it wasn’t the person who induced the collision—if it was the expertise at fault—nicely, then you definately’re outdoors auto insurance coverage litigation. Now you’re product legal responsibility litigation towards the car producer or expertise supplier. That’s much more advanced and takes rather a lot longer than your typical motorcar collision legal responsibility claims.

When you have individuals which are injured in a collision that was attributable to automated car, they’ll get some protection from their very own insurer, but when they want extra they’re going to should go up towards a car producer expertise supplier. It’s not a motorcar legal responsibility declare, which implies that particular person may now be ready rather a lot longer to get compensated.

And from a public coverage perspective: auto insurance coverage is closely regulated, and at IBC we imagine the legal guidelines that underpin it ought to make it possible for people who find themselves injured have entry to honest and fast compensation. We see automated autos difficult the auto insurance coverage legal guidelines which have been in place for many years, and we predict there’s a have to replace them. They need to mirror the dangers related to automated autos, so that you don’t have individuals injured having to proceed by means of pricey, protracted product legal responsibility litigation.

That’s an excellent level, Ryan. Thanks for making the time to talk with me at present.

It was my pleasure.


On this episode of the Accenture Insurance coverage Influencers podcast, we talked about:

  • Six ranges of driving automation, as outlined by the Society of Automotive Engineers
  • The underlying assumptions baked into auto insurance coverage insurance policies and legislation, and the way they had been challenged by the sharing financial system
  • Why at present’s insurance coverage business isn’t ready for automated automobiles, and why that ought to concern customers

For extra steerage on self-driving automobiles:

Within the subsequent episode, Ryan will share a two-part framework that IBC developed for automated autos and the way it addresses the potential for injured events having to barter product legal responsibility insurance coverage. And, we’ll speak in regards to the challenges and alternatives that self-driving automobiles pose for insurers.

What to do subsequent:

Contact us for those who’d wish to be a visitor on the Insurance coverage Influencers podcast.

Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles