Good to Know

No More EMF/RF Radiation Insurance From Lloyd’s of London

By March 27, 2015 No Comments

Lloyd’s of London Insurance is now excluding Electromagnetic Radiation injuries from their policies, and people are asking why, but Lloyd’s won’t discuss it.

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.” Just like tobacco, asbestos and climate change, and now microwave radiation apparently, even though regulatory and health agencies around the world refuse to accept RF exposure as causing illness. In Febuary of 2015, Lloyd’s of London 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. Her 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.”?

School officials who have been made aware of the health risks from Electromagnetic Radiation could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation in their schools. Please note that in a court of law, one cannot use any Regulatory body such as Health Canada as an excuse for ignoring warnings.

If you follow through Lloyd’s of London insurance waiver: Parents and teachers have a right to know that the Wi-Fi being installed in schools throughout the province (even those with wired internet access) emits microwave radiation that has the potential to do great harm.

“School Districts, School Boards and School Medical Health Officers should know 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.” (Exclusion 32) This would include the microwave radiation emitting from the Commercial Wi-Fi Transmitters and Wireless Devices in our schools. Lloyd’s of London is one of the largest insurers in the world and often leads the way in protection, taking on risks that no one else will. But now is seem that EMF/RF Radiation is to BIG of a health risk to cover even for the healthy and mighty insurance market.

Click below to read more on future of insurance:

https://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging%20risk%20reports/emf%20final%20november%202010.pdf

http://www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-emf-clause/

http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/insurance-and-liability-in-communities-governments,61,0

http://smartmeterharm.org/2015/03/18/lloyds-of-london-excludes-liability-coverage-for-rfemf-claims/