The insurance industry already recognizes the potential risks of EMFs and is protecting itself. Insurance companies do not cover health damage caused by wireless technologies.
Several cell phone brain tumor cases are moving forward since Italy's Supreme Court ruled a man's brain tumor was caused by his cell phone.
School officials could be held personally liable for wifi in schools. See below.
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
“If there is even a reasonable possibility that cell phone radiation is carcinogenic, the time for action in the public health and regulatory sectors is upon us. Even though the financial and social cost of restricting such devices would be significant, those costs pale in comparison to the cost in human lives from doing nothing, only to discover thirty or forty years from now that the early signs were pointing in the right direction....If the probability of carcinogenicity is low, but the magnitude of the potential harm is high, good public policy dictates that the risk should not be ignored.”
DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg in her 2014 Ruling allowing expert testimony on litigation alleging cell phone linked tumors.
Who will be held personally liable for negligence? School Officials are refusing to acknowledge the peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that have been presented to them by concerned parents.
The new Bring Your Own Devices policy that many schools are issuing has resulted in students bringing in a cell phone plus a few other devices to classrooms every day. Will the fact that School Officials refuse to inform parents, teachers and students about the warnings in Safety Manuals and Disclaimers that come with cell phones and other wireless devices also make them liable?
When school officials are notified of this risk, they could be personally held legally responsible for the permanent injuries to our children caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure.
Americans with Disabilities San Francisco Hearing, January 2011
Full transcript of meeting in which electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivities were discussed under the ADA law.
Legal Accommodations and Court Cases
“According to the Americans with Disabilities Act and other disability laws, public and commercial buildings are required to provide reasonable accommodations for those disabled by chemical and/or electromagnetic sensitivities.”
The parents offered to pay themselves for non-disruptive accommodations such as hardwiring the internet with ethernet connections and the school declined. The school insisted that the Wi-Fi system complies with Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) radiofrequency radiation guidelines adopted in 1996 despite the EPA clarifying that such regulations do not apply to long-term Wi-Fi exposures in schools. The Fay Board of Trustees received four letters from scientific experts in electromagnetic fields. You can read them here.
Read more about this court case
AM BEST: AM Best states in a 2013 briefing that "Emerging technologies pose significant risks with possible long tail losses". "The risks associated with long-term use of cell phones is unknown, however what is known is the risk that cell tower workers face. Thermal effects include eye damage, sterility, and cognitive impairments." Read the briefing here.
AUVA Report (2009)
This Austrian insurance company commissioned experts to assess biological effects of mobile phone radiation. Non-thermal effects were observed: “… the demonstrated effects, should not even have occurred, according to the strictly thermal interaction mechanism that would have been covered by current exposure guidelines”.
Read The Details Here.
Lloyd's of London (2010)
"The danger with EMF is that, like asbestos, the exposure insurers face is underestimated and could grow exponentially and be with us for many years.” Lloyd’s refuses to cover claims linked with RF radiation .
The Lloyds Insurance Company: Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones: Recent Developments - Emerging Risks Report. November 2010. Read it HERE
Exclusion of Coverage for Illness from Long Term Exposure
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. The recent renewal policy -as of Feb. 7, 2015- excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to a parent's request for 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-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”
As our friends at Parents for Safe Schools (who posted this information) stated,"This information begs the question, why would an insurance company exclude injuries from electromagnetic radiation if it were safe for children and the unborn?
Swiss Re (2013)
“Over the last decade, the spread of wireless devices has accelerated enormously. … This development has increased exposure … If a direct link [to health effects] … were established, it would open doors for new claims and could ultimately lead to large losses ...”
Unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields (Swiss Re 2013)
Overall potential impact: High
Time Frame: >10 Years.
Remember what Swiss Re wrote in 2005.
"For the insurance industry, this standoff gives rise to an extremely dangerous risk of change composed of two parts: the classical development risk, that is, the possibility that new research findings will demonstrate electromagnetic fields to be more dangerous than has hitherto been assumed; and the sociopolitical risk of change, in other words, the possibility that changing social values could result in scientific findigs being evaluated differently than they have been thus far. "