Subject:  (Carney) (Scherer) (DePippo) EMF insurance (fwd)
Date:     Mon, 15 Mar 1999 070119 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 05:53:37 -0700
From: Deb Carney 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Re: (Scherer) (DePippo) EMF insurance (fwd)

It might be helpful to know that risk prevention measures are a big deal with
many insurance companies.  Some hold seminars explaining potential risks and
outline how to avoid the risks.  This may drive a change in behavior because
the insurance companies will penalize more risky operations with higher
premiums or denial of coverage.  That is why it is important to watch what is
happening in the insurance industry on EMR.
Does anyone know if the major broadcasters are self insured or if they have
outside insurance?

"Roy L. Beavers" wrote:

> Hi everybody:
>
> ......This message (and the next which I will forward) raises the
> question of the stand that is (or is not) being taken by the insurance
> industry with regard to the various EMF liabilities......  Over a year
> ago (at the time of the pamphlet written by Scandia??) some other readers
> of this list raised some of the same questions....
>
> I believe it is probably a good subject to revisit at this time because
> it is fairly certain that (in light of the recent public debate in
> Europe in connection with the resolution just passed by the European
> Parliament) the insurance industry must be focusing on the possible
> future liabilities.....
>
> I find it extremely interesting that NONE of the European debate (not
> even the final published resolution) has been reported in the U.S.  I
> saw brief mention about it on BBC TV, but otherwise NOTHING in the
> U.S.!!!  I do not have an English version of that resolution.  (I have
> received a translation from the Spanish.)  But it seems that -- in spite
> of the usual "compromised" political language -- it does rather
> forthrightly suggest that "we DO have a problem with EMF."  (My words --
> reading between the lines of the translation I have.)
>
> So, let us begin to take note (again) of what the insurance industry is
> doing???
>
> Cheerio.....
>
> Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
> rbeavers@llion.org................
> ...It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...
> .................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS...............
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:04:17 -6000
> From: "Wolfgang W. Scherer " 
> To: rbeavers@llion.org
> Cc: pdepippo@aol.com
> Subject: Re ( DePippo) EMF insurance
>
> Hi Roy
> since we have lawyers on our list
> I would like to ask them the following
>
> In Peter's response he points to the exclusion of EMF effects in
> insurances also that then such coverage can be bought at higher cost.
>
> Since insurance is a regulated business the exclusion of risks needs
> in my understanding a legal reasoning
> - the insurance industry provides the answer
>  offering coverage at higher cost
>  therefore ESTABLISHING "legally"
>  EMF effects as a higher risk than other factors -
>  sanctioned by the regulating agency - government.
>
> Now even a government cannot have it both ways
>  by allowing for such "special" insurance the government itselfs
> recognizes  a special "higher" risk - and can therefore no longer
> uphold the "low or no risk" approach on behalf of the industry -
>
> To me this is the only "logical" conclusion
>  but we are on Earth  - not on Volcan territory.
>
> Can someone sort out the legal implications ????
> Anyway  we will  see  what "word twisting" occurs now.
>
> Greetings
> Wolfgang




Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html