This insights article is by Michael McCabe, Solicitor at DAC Beachcroft, Joanna Folan, Legal Director at DAC Beachcroft and Pete Allchorne, Partner at DAC Beachcroft.
Historically, motor claims have largely relied on witness evidence, expert analysis of physical damage, and police reports. Automated vehicles (AVs) have the potential to fundamentally change that model by generating detailed digital records of what happened before, during and after a collision. The opportunities for insurers are significant, but so too are the challenges.
A new source of evidence
AVs continuously generate information through cameras, radar, lidar, sensors and onboard computing systems. These systems record speed, steering inputs, braking activity, environmental conditions and other operational data, including what decisions the AV system made and why. AVs can potentially provide a detailed, objective account of events around a collision.
For insurers, this creates the possibility of much faster and more accurate liability investigations. Better quality evidence could reduce disputes, improve fraud detection and enable compensation decisions to be made more quickly, further reducing friction costs.
The existence of data is only part of the equation, however. Insurers will need to define the data they will need to deal with AV-related incidents. Vehicle manufacturers and technology providers will control enormous quantities of proprietary data and cannot reasonably be expected to provide unrestricted access to everything they will collect. The challenge is determining a limited and proportionate dataset that provides enough information to investigate claims without exposing commercially sensitive systems.
There are also practical concerns around the sheer volume of information generated by AVs. Identifying relevant information, preserving it, transferring it securely and interpreting it may become a complex and costly exercise. In lower-value claims, the cost of analysing technical data could potentially exceed the value of the dispute itself.
Insurers must also consider issues relating to data integrity. If vehicle-generated information is to become primary evidence, parties must be confident that it has been preserved correctly, protected from manipulation and supported by a robust chain of custody. Cybersecurity incidents, software updates and data corruption may all become issues that need to be explored during litigation.
What should a minimum claims dataset contain?
The insurance industry is increasingly focused on the concept of a standardised minimum dataset.
At a minimum, insurers are likely to require information confirming whether the automated driving system was engaged at the time of the incident or whether a human driver retained control. Establishing “who was driving” is arguably the most fundamental question in any AV claim because it determines whether the driver is liable under the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the insurer is liable under the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018.
Insurers may also need access to information regarding:
· Whether automated driving was authorised and operating within its approved conditions
· When control transferred between the automated system and the human driver
· What objects, vehicles or hazards the system detected before the incident
· Key operational information such as speed, braking, steering inputs and manoeuvres
· Whether all safety-critical updates to the automated driving system had been properly installed
Balancing access and intellectual property
One of the most delicate aspects of the AV data debate concerns the balance between transparency and innovation.
Insurers will require sufficient information to assess liability, comply with statutory obligations, investigate fraud and determine whether recovery action should be pursued against the party responsible for the damage.
Manufacturers and software developers, however, have invested enormous resources in creating automated driving systems. The algorithms, machine-learning models and datasets underpinning those systems are often among their most valuable intellectual assets. Unsurprisingly, they are reluctant to disclose information that could reveal trade secrets or commercially sensitive information.
A well-designed framework could provide insurers with access to a defined minimum dataset while protecting proprietary technology and confidential business information. The debate should therefore not be framed as a choice between transparency and commercial protection, but rather as a question of how both objectives can be achieved simultaneously.
The case for standardisation
If every manufacturer adopts different data formats, retention policies and disclosure processes, insurers could face significant operational difficulties. Claims investigations would become inconsistent, evidence would be harder to interpret and disputes over access could become commonplace.
Many stakeholders are of the opinion that the best solution is requiring data controllers to provide access of Data Storage System for Automated Driving (DSSAD) information to compensators. DSSAD collection and retention, which is already mandated by UNECE regulations, provides a clear picture of the interactions between the driver and the automated driving system before, during and after an event in order to establish if the driver or system was requested to be in control and who was actually performing the driving task. Aside from mandating access of it to compensators, government could also clarify how quickly it must be provided and the format in which it should be made available.
Regulators, investigators, compensators and manufacturers would all benefit from greater certainty and consistency. Perhaps most importantly, consumers would benefit from faster claims resolution and greater confidence that responsibility can be determined when something goes wrong.
Conclusion
AVs have the potential to transform motor claims by replacing much of today’s subjective evidence with detailed digital records. Access to reliable information could enable insurers to establish liability more quickly, combat fraud more effectively and deliver faster outcomes for customers.
Insurers will need timely access to relevant and interpretable data, manufacturers need protection for commercially sensitive information, and policymakers must establish clear and consistent rules governing both.
Be the first to comment