The general causation score measures the extent to which peer-reviewed scientific articles support a hypothesis that a particular Litagion® agent causes bodily injury or property damage.
Based on Praedicat's prioritization approach, our current model scope covers commercial activities causing latent bodily injury to individuals who have legal standing in U.S. courts.
Commercial activities include products, substances, phenomena, services or practices.
The term latent bodily injury refers to injury that is due to chronic exposure to a particular commercial activity and typically is diagnosed years after exposure begins.
Since Praedicat’s current model is limited to the U.S. legal system, the model applies to individuals with legal standing in U.S. courts, which typically requires that the defendant has engaged in activities occurring in the U.S. or activities that are otherwise governed by U.S. law.
How are hazards identified and prioritized?
As part of the process of identifying and selecting the commercial activities that Praedicat models, a candidate list of potential hazards is compiled from various external data sources such as regulatory resources and other authoritative resources. The list of candidate hazards is created from the following data sources:
- U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act
- European Chemicals Agency REACH
- U.S. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (drugs, food additives, dietary supplements and cosmetics)
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
- International Agency for Research on Cancer
- U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
In addition, non-chemical risks that could lead to mass litigation are considered in the compilation of candidate hazards. Examples of non-chemical risks include radiofrequency radiation, industrial processes (i.e., hydraulic fracturing, waste water injection), and non-chemical substances (i.e., sugar, dietary salt). In total, the composite list includes approximately 100,000 elements.
To prioritize these hazards, Praedicat data mines medical literature for evidence that any of the candidate hazards causes harm. The percentage of hazards that have any associated scientific literature is about 10%. When evidence suggests that there is scientific interest in a hypothesis of bodily injury, Praedicat analysts evaluate the overall quality and level of evidence to determine which risks should be prioritized. In addition to mining public literature, we prioritize elements that are the subject of regulatory interest.
Once there is evidence suggesting current or future material risk, the hazard is then nominated as a Litagion® agent. Currently, Praedicat has full profiles for close to 200 Litagion agents and growing, as we continue to query scientific articles monthly.
To prioritize the risks that Praedicat analysts profile, risk characteristics are considered. Risks that pose little chance of cross-industry clash are deprioritized. Risks that pose only acute (short-term) health effects are also deprioritized, since the opportunity for the accumulation risk over time of a mass event is limited. In addition, risks that are already the subject of mass litigation (i.e., asbestos, tobacco) or have already been banned in the U.S. are deprioritized.
Scope summary: Hazards
This prioritization method has determined which hazards are currently in scope and out of scope within both CoMeta™ and Oortfolio™. Currently, the scope of the model includes:
| Hazard | CoMeta | Oortfolio |
|---|---|---|
| Chemicals | In scope | In scope |
| Substances | In scope | In scope |
| Pharmaceuticals | In scope | |
| Industrial activities | In scope | |
| Medical devices | ||
| Idiosyncratic industrial accidents | ||
| Activities covered exclusively by other lines of business |
Scope summary: Companies
When a Litagion agent is profiled, the industries and companies that could be named as defendants in future mass litigation are identified. All industries in the economy are considered when linking Litagion agents to industry groups. Linking the exposure from a Litagion agent to a specific company requires profiling companies with respect to the Litagion agent to understand if the company deploys the Litagion agent.
Praedicat’s approach to prioritizing the profiling of companies is to examine likely places of loss concentration. As a result, Praedicat analysts have profiled most of the Fortune 1000 companies. Praedicat has employed a data science solution to algorithmically profile nearly 3,000 additional mid-market sized companies.
Government, municipalities and non-commercial defendants are currently out of scope.
Scope summary: Liability insurance
The focus of Praedicat’s model represents insured losses from damages from bodily injury to U.S. claimants. Logical extensions of our model that have been prioritized for development include the quantification of losses insured by workers’ compensation, latent property damage and punitive damage. Currently, the scope of the model includes:
| Insurance line | CoMeta | Oortfolio |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial general liability | In scope | In scope |
| Products liability | In scope | In scope |
| Umbrella | In scope | In scope |
| Excess casualty | In scope | In scope |
| Property | ||
| Environmental | ||
| Business interruption | ||
| Reputational damages | ||
| Workers compensation | ||
| Professional liability |