Lloyd’s of London excludes liability coverage for RF/EMF claims + woensdag, 25 maart 2015 – Dossier: Juridische informatie
Bron 1: smartmeterharm.org/2015/03/18/lloyds-of-london-excludes-liability-coverage-for-rfemf-claims/ . 18 maart 2015 Credit to Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia, for bringing this information to the public.
Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims, “Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” (Exclusion 32) This information is from CFC Underwriting Limited, which is a Lloyd’s of London underwriter (page 12-13 of policy document, page 13-14 of pdf), and was posted by Citizens for Safe Technology: This is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: “‘The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168 The policy document is here: emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InsuranceAEWordingCanadav17Feb2015.pdf or www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/Insurance%20AE%20Wording%20Canada%20v1%207%20Feb%202015.pdf From the Lloyd’s of London policy: “Exclusions (starting on Page 6 of policy, Page 7 of pdf): We will not a) make any payment on your behalf for any claim, or
b) incur any costs and expenses, or c) reimburse you for any loss, damage, legal expenses, fees or costs sustained by you, or d) pay any medical expenses: … 32. Electromagnetic fields (General Insurance Exclusions –Page 7 of policy): directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation and electromagnetic radiation emitted from Smart Meters (AMR, AMI, PLC), from Home Area Network devices and appliances (including AC and thermostats), from Wi-Fi transmitters, from wireless devices in schools, offices, and homes, and from wireless sensors and wireless-connected fire alarms.
“This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada. “Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer. “Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made.” Yours truly, Sharon Noble Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia, Canada The full letter with policy document is here: www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168 . Scholen verantwoordelijk voor schade door RF straling Bron 2: thebridgenewsservice.com/2015/02/26/school-boards-left-on-the-hook-for-wi-fi-injuries/ . 26 febr. 2015
CANADA, CORPORATIONS, GOVERNMENT, HEALTH School Boards Left On The Hook For Wi-Fi Injuries. By Janis Hoffman School officials could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation in our schools. School districts, school boards and school medical health officers have been notified that Lloyd’s of London has now excluded any liability coverage for injuries, “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation emitting from the commercial wi-fi transmitters and wireless devices in our schools. In response to a request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Lloyd’s of London, one of the world’s largest insurance companies often leads the way in protection by taking on risks that no one else will. At the end of this article there is a copy of a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) dropped a bombshell on the wireless industry. They designated exposure to wi-fi radiation to be a possible human carcinogen. As well in the 1990s illnesses resulting from asbestos exposure, covered by Lloyd’s at the time, almost destroyed the insurance company. Due to these issues, it appears Lloyd’s is acting fast to avoid another such financial fiasco by not covering illnesses that result from exposure to wireless radiation. With the Lloyd’s of London announcement, parents and teachers are left with this question: exactly who is liable if their child is harmed by wi-fi in their school? Concomitantly, are the individuals who approved the installation of wireless internet networks in our schools to be held personally liable for negligence? School officials and administrators appear to be in a bind as they have refused to acknowledge the 1000s of peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that show that wi-fi radiation is harmful, especially to children. Moreover, their dogged allegiance to Health Canada’s now invalidated safety guidelines have left parents with nowhere else to turn other than the courts. It appears that school boards’ intransigent position on the issue may have left board members themselves vulnerable to being personally sued.
School boards may be covered by directors’ insurance which applies to people who are performing their duties “in good faith.” The question is: are they still protected when it could be shown that they were being “willfully blind?” Definitions: “In good faith:” in contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. “Wilful blindness:” (sometimes called ignorance of law, wilful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting him or herself in a position where he or she will be unaware of facts that would render him or her liable.
https://thebridgenewsservice.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/image001.jpg Zie ook: www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-emf-clause/ . 25 maart 2015
Lloyd’s Won’t Discuss Their New EMF Exclusion Clause Last week, a couple of blogs noted that a recent commercial liability insurance renewal policy issued through a Lloyd’s of London underwriter contained a liability exclusion clause about electromagnetic fields. The clause excludes any compensation for claims: “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” It is important that “radio waves” are explicitly included as they, specifically the microwave zone, are what enable wireless communications devices like cell phones, wi-fi, cordless phones etc. After the policy holder made an inquiry seeking clarification about the exclusion language, CFC Underwriting LTD in London, the UK agent for Lloyd’s, sent the following: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Sharon Noble, Director of the Coalition to Stop Smart Meter Harm in British Columbia (Canada) brought the clause and CFC’s response to public attention.
My interpretation of this revealing statement is that CFC Underwriting, and perhaps all of “the market” is that the time has come to hedge against a future surge in “illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Why else would they refuse coverage “across the market as standard.”? “Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Lloyd’s of London describes itself as “the world’s specialist insurance market,” and they’ve insured and paid on a variety of unusual risks and catastrophic claims. Unlike many other insurance brands, Lloyd’s is not a company; it’s “a market where our members join together as syndicates to insure risks.” What they insure falls into seven broad categories: casualty, property, marine, energy, motor, aviation and reinsurance. Reinsurance is the key here, as, among other things, it serves “to protect an insurer against very large claims.” Think tobacco, asbestos and climate change. And microwave radiation apparently, even though regulatory and health agencies around the world refuse to accept RF exposure as causing illness. www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-their-emf-exclusion-clause/lloyds-emf-exclusion/ I was seriously intrigued at all of this and emailed an inquiry to the Lloyd’s press center stating that I wanted some more details about the exclusion. I told them that as I primarily produce radio, I’d want to capture the conversation on tape, but would also be happy to talk with someone off tape, but on the record. Two hours later, I received a response from a woman at Prosek Partners, “a communications consultancy that delivers an unexpected level of passion, creativity and marketing savvy,” which apparently handles such issues for Lloyd’s. She wanted to know more about what exactly I was seeking and asked if I would “mind expanding on your request a bit?” so she could best determine how to help me. I obliged, sending back “Basically I’m interested in the 5 Ws, but why especially. I’d also like to how widely the exclusion is being replicated in Lloyd’s policies. Is there any sense internally at Lloyd’s about this being a first step that is likely to be copied industry wide? Was there any conversation pre/post release of the exclusion language with any wireless industry businesses?” This afternoon (she apologized for the 24 hour ‘delay’) she wrote back to tell me “Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Now I’m used to rejection as a reporter, but I couldn’t quite believe this and told her so in my reply, mentioning that their refusal to talk about the policy change would possibly “draw attention away from more important aspects of the story.”
The takeaway here is that the Lloyd’s, the world’s largest insurance market place has “across the market” not only refused to provide coverage for any claims arising from exposure to cell phones, wi-fi or any other source of electromagnetic frequency radiation, but also refused to answer a media inquiry about why, claiming that there is no one “who can.” Hmmm…