Lloyd’s of London Responds, Sort Of



Almost two months ago, I wrote a post about a Lloyd’s of London underwriter issuing a commercial liability insurance renewal policy with a new liability exclusion clause for 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.”

Read that post for more detail, including how Lloyd’s refused to provide anyone to answer some basic questions regarding the new exclusion.

Today, that same public relations contact referenced in the original piece, who told me there was no one at Lloyd’s who could comment for this story, contacted me to ask that I include the following, which she claimed would correct an inaccuracy: “Lloyd’s has not issued any requirements or guidance relating to a standard market-wide exclusion. It is a matter for the individual underwriters to agree [to] the terms of policies in accordance with their own commercial underwriting criteria and subject to any locally applicable laws.”

The first sentence is clear enough, however that second one puzzles me. To whose “terms of policies” would underwriters be agreeing? I await a reply from the PR lady. I should mention that I did find some awkward and possibly inaccurate phrasing in the final paragraph of the original story which could have been considered misleading. It was not intended and I have corrected it.

One thought on “Lloyd’s of London Responds, Sort Of

  1. Pehaps their customer–the telcom industry put pressure on them to obscure this issue as it makes clear that people in high places know the dangers inherent in EMR/RF. Even if the telemcom industry cannot force them to insure them for RF damage–they certainly can infuence them to stop talking about it!! They pay lots of money in insurance and the insurance companies don’t want to lose that money. The telecom industry can influence most people, politicians, and many researchers. They have very deep pockets and are quite conscience-free!!! Thanks for keeping this issue in the public eye.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *