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.