Sunday, 20 September 2015


Lloyd’s of London often leads the way as one of the world’s largest insurance companies in industry trends, taking on risks that no one else will and recognizing early signs of trouble and possible liability issues.   

Recently Lloyd’s of London modified its renewal policy (Feb. 7, 2015) to now exclude any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation (i.e. wireless communications) “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.”

In response to a request for clarification, CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s, stated:
“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.” (Feb. 18, 2015)

In 2010 the Emerging Risks Team of Lloyds of London published a white paper on the question of EMF (Electromagnetic fields) and made a comparative study to the history of asbestos and its impact on the insurance industry.

Lloyd's report explores links between EMF exposure and asbestos exposure

"The danger with EMF is that, like asbestos, the exposure insurers face is underestimated and could grow exponentially and be with us for many years."

Maxum Insurance: Exclusion to Electromagnetic Radiation

(1) "Bodily Injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of, resulting from, caused by or contributed to by electromagnetic radiation, provided that such injury or damage results from or is contributed to by the pathological properties of electromagnetic radiation; or

(2) The costs of abatement or mitigation electromagnetic radiation or exposure to electromagnetic radiation. This exclusion also includes:

(a) Any supervision, instructions, recommendations, warnings or advice given or which should have been given in connection with the above; and

(b) Any obligation to share damages with or repay someone else who must pay "damages" because of such an injury or damage.

"Damages" mean compensation only in the form of money, for a person or entity who claims to have suffered a "bodily injury" or "personal and advertising injury" or who claims to have sustained "property damage" 

Insurance and Liability of Wireless Communication Carriers

Listed are documents from insurance companies, court cases that have been awarded compensation for RF radiation adverse health effects, industry defence attorneys, actuaries, and from the news/web media.  They claim limits of liability for any adverse RF health effects in their contract with the user, and maintain that they do not have to carry tort or liability insurance.


"A re-insurance company is a company that backs up an industry for claims that the industry may not be able to cover.  Possibly the largest re-insurance company in the world, Swiss Re, will not take this liability on with cell phones and health effects.  At present, most cell phone companies are “self insured”.  Meaning, they may be able to just file bankruptcy should there be too many claims.”

“In its Swiss Re SONAR Emerging Risks report, 2013, which covers risks that could “impact the insurance industry in the future”, the company categorises the impact of health claims related to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as ‘high’.  It acknowledges recent reports of courts ruling in favour of claimants who have experienced health damage from mobile phones, and also says that anxiety over risks related to EMFs is “on the rise”

Austrian AUVA Report: Insurance Company Presents Research on Health Risks from Cell Phone Radiation

“The ubiquitous exposure to this unnatural type of radiation at unprecedented levels of power density harms human health. Short-term and long-term health impairments are preprogrammed and will especially manifest in the next generation if politically responsible actions are not taken immediately.”

Why would insurance companies exclude injuries from electromagnetic radiation if it were completely safe for all persons including children and pregnant women?

Saturday, 5 September 2015

School Being Sued For ADA Violations - Wi-Fi Accommodations needed because of Sensitivity to Wi-Fi

The school installed Wi-Fi in Spring 2013, when a 12-year-old boy started to experience troubling symptoms, which he reported to his parents when he came home from school. These included severe headaches, itchy skin, and rashes. The school nurse indicated that various children in the same classes were reporting increased headaches, dizziness, nausea and chest pressure. The symptoms were present whenever he was at school. 

Experts warn pregnant mothers to keep cell phones and other wireless devices away from their wombs
Patricia Wood, Executive Director of Grassroots Environmental Education and co-creator of the BabySafe Project says,
The wireless world may be convenient, but it’s not without risks.” She goes on to explain that “when more than one hundred of the world’s leading medical doctors and researchers on wireless radiation say we have enough evidence for women to take protective action, we think women should know about it.

Insurance Companies Won't Cover Cell Phone Brain Tumor Product Liability Lawsuits

The insurance industry has refused to provide product liability insurance on cell phones primarily due to this concern as they fear that cell phone litigation may turn out like tobacco or asbestos litigation did with huge punitive awards.


Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe has dedicated this video to Jenny Fry, the 15-year-old girl with EHS who recently committed suicide by hanging. Her parents fought for over 2 years to have the wireless technology removed from her school. They were convinced it was damaging her health both physically and psychologically.  Parent should not be forced to choose to whether to educate their children or safe guard them.

Progress in Austria's South Tyrol: “Applying the Precautionary Principle”

1.     To replace existing wireless networks whenever possible with networks that emit less radiation at schools, preschools, hospitals, nursing homes, and other public facilities…
2. To establish a working group whose mandate it is to assess these new technologies and their exposure levels. With regard to wireless communication technologies, mobile Internet access, and public health, the working group shall clarify which technologies emit less radiation and provide sustainable technology options…
3. To start an education and awareness campaign that informs about possible health risks, especially regarding the unborn, infants, children, and adolescents and that develops guidelines for a safer use of cell phones, smartphones, and Wi-Fi …