Lloyd’s of London EXCLUDES liability coverage for harm from RF-EMFs/wireless radiation
Underwriters for Lloyd’s often lead the way in insurance industry, taking on risks that no one else will, but when it comes to damages resulting from wireless tech – they have decided to shield themselves from the coming tidal wave. Which raises the question, what do they know, that most mobile phone users currently do not?
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.”
The policy document is here: http://emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InsuranceAEWordingCanadav17Feb2015.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.”
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia, Canada