INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL NO LONGER INSURE INJURIES
FROM WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
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 http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000392648
"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
(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.
http://www.mainecoalitiontostopsmartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/EV9-Insurability-Liability-Corrected-4-8-13-PUC-464.pdf
WHY SWISS RE WILL NOT RE-INSURE MOBILE PHONES FOR HEALTH RISKS
"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.”
http://www.eirewaves.com/media/auva_report.pdf
Why would insurance companies exclude
injuries from electromagnetic radiation if it were completely safe for all
persons including children and pregnant women?
