Syndication

Visualizzazione post con etichetta assicurazioni. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta assicurazioni. Mostra tutti i post

mercoledì 20 settembre 2017

Cosa dicono le società delle telefonia e le assicurazioni sui rischi associati allo utilizzo delle radiofrequenze ?

Vi allego un documento molto interessante ed utile:

ci sono le dichiarazioni che alcune società della telefonia e non, come anche quelle assicurative internazionali, che dicono ai propri investitori sui pericoli (per loro ovviamente, ovvero per la redditività delle loro azioni) provenienti dallo esito negativo di sentenze della magistratura e dalla futura evidenzi azione scientifica degli effetti delle radiofrequenze sulla salute umana.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x2s6drw2mz13q2t/Telecom-10-K-Liability-and-Insurance-Companies-Slides-EHT-6-2016.pdf?dl=0



si dice :

... nessuna assicurazione che futuri studi correlino i telefoni agli effetti sulla salute
...se le posizioni di WHO subiranno delle modifiche sono prevedibili modiche delle legislazioni nazionali
...se la sensazione di rischio sarà sostanziato ...
... noi non assicuriamo le aziende per questi rischi ...  (diverse le grandi cmpagnie di assicurazioni che ribadiscono la loro decisione di stare lontano dalla telefonia ! )
...siamo impegnati in diversi procedimenti giudiziali ...
... con il forte incremento della esposizione alle RF una relazione con la salute è stato stabilito per cui si apre le porte a rivendizaioni legali con conseguenti forti perdite ...

lunedì 28 dicembre 2015

Altra nota sulla posizione delle Assicurazioni sui danni da parte delle CEM

Pubblicata in una rivista periodica giuridica del New England (USA) viene riproposto uno studio (aggiornato)

http://www.mainecoalitiontostopsmartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/EV9-Insurability-Liability-Corrected-4-8-13-PUC-464.pdf

sulla posizione espressa da diverse fonti sulla assicurazione pdella responsabilità di società di comunicazione che utilizzano sistemi wireless.

Fonti:

Lloyds of London Risk assessment del 2011 in cui EMF compaiono tra i 50 maggiori fonti di rischi (per le casse delle società, ovviamente) e compare tra i 38 rischi negli USA

Swiss Re (che una società importante di riassicurazione - sono quelle che assicurano i maggiori rischi delle società assicurative, loro clienti - ) riporta conclusioni molto critiche in quanto la ricerca non dà risposte certe e le correlazioni con gravi malattie sono molto complesse al punto che la ricerca ha difficoltà a dare risposte. Nel 2011 esprime una decisione decisa. di NON riassicurazione contratti assicurativi legati a RF,

Zurich Insurance non paga per assicurazione per la responsabilità su EMF

Società TV canadesi nel 2010: 2/3 delle società non sono assicurate per eventuali danni da RF

Corte del Lavoro spagnola (2011) riconosciuta la elettrosensibilità di un professore con compensazione monetaria pari al 100% dello stipendio

DRI è una associazione di legali americana con molti soci ; nel 2009 nella Conference annuale ha affrontato il caso della responsabilità dei cellulari ed accessori. Il tema era su chi deve pagare i danni ? 

Suprema corte dell'Alaska nel 2007 ha deciso per la compensazione al 100% per un installatore della AT&T

domenica 22 marzo 2015

Le Lloyd Assicurazioni non assicurano danni da EMF

Viene riconfermata la decisione del gigante delle assicurazioni, Lloyd, di escludere la copertura di danni provenienti direttamente o indirettamente da campi elettromagnetici, radiazioni elettromagmetiche, elettromagnetismo, onde radio, ,,,,   qui sotto ci sono i riferimenti della polizza tipo .






Lloyd’s of London excludes liability coverage for RF/EMF claims
Posted on March 18, 2015
Credit to Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia, for bringing this information to the public. 
Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims,
Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” (Exclusion 32)
This information is from CFC Underwriting Limited, which is a Lloyd’s of London underwriter (page 12-13 of policy document, page 13-14 of pdf), and was posted by Citizens for Safe Technology:
[This] is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to 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-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168

From the Lloyd’s of London policy:
“Exclusions (starting on Page 6 of policy, Page 7 of pdf):
We will not
a) make any payment on your behalf for any claim, or
b) incur any costs and expenses, or
c) reimburse you for any loss, damage, legal expenses, fees or costs sustained by you, or
d) pay any medical expenses:

32. Electromagnetic fields (General Insurance Exclusions –Page 7 of policy):
directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.”
This would include the microwave radiation and electromagnetic radiation emitted from Smart Meters (AMR, AMI, PLC), from Home Area Network devices and appliances (including AC and thermostats), from Wi-Fi transmitters, from wireless devices in schools, offices, and homes, and from wireless sensors and wireless-connected fire alarms.
 “This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada.
“Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer.
“Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made.”
Yours truly,
Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

lunedì 2 settembre 2013

Il rischio delle RF è presente nel contratto di affitto del terrazzo dove viene piazzata un'antenna ?!

In questo articolo ci si pone il quesito legale assicurativo legato ai rischi derivati dalla presenza di antenne su proprietà altrui.
In particolare si riporta la posizione delle società di assicurazione che sono molto preoccupate per potenziali rischi che in genere non vengono mai esplicitati nel contratti di affitto ad es. del tetto o terrazzo sul quale viene piazzata l'antenna.  Si pone il problema della co-responsabilità del proprietario del terrazzo nei danni causati a terzi.
E quindi della obbligatorietà della informazione da parte della società che installa l'antenna dei possibili danni causati dalle RF, in modo che, ad es. il proprietario possa discutere un affitto che includa questo rischio ...






Hidden Insurance Risk Lurks in Property Leases


 
 
(il rischio assicurativo si nascondo nei contratti di affitto )
 
 
By Gloria Vogel, CFA | August 21, 2013

The RF Radiation Risk Factor

In February 2013, AM Best classified RF (radio frequency) radiation from wireless antennas as an “Emerging Technology-Based Risk.” This was based, in part, on an estimated 250,000 workers per year who may be over-exposed to RF radiation from the 600,000 governmental and commercial RF radiating antenna systems across the nation.wireless antenna
The FCC recognizes RF radiation from transmitting antennas as a human health hazard, as a single RF transmitting antenna can emit hundreds of times more RF radiation than a cell phone.  RF radiation hazards from transmitting antennas can cause thermal and non-thermal or cognitive/psychological injuries. Non-thermal or cognitive/psychological injuries do not necessarily have a physical manifestation. Cognitive/psychological RF injuries include memory loss, mood disorders, sleep disorders, and impaired or diminished cognitive function.
RF radiation injuries should be of concern to insurers, especially since their exposure to the risk is hidden within the lease contracts between the commercial wireless service providers (CWSPs) and landlords who lease space to those CWSPs for antenna systems.
The Property Leases:
Landlords who lease space to the CWSPs are completely unaware of the potential for injury from RF transmitting antennas and that they will be held liable for such injures. Typical site leases include a mutual indemnification clause, which would appear to protect the landlords from personal injuries that may be caused by the CWSPs’ antennas.  However to enforce the indemnity provision, the landlords must demonstrate that the primary cause of injury was the fault of the CWSPs.
CWSPs will take the position that it was the landlords who permitted access to the RF hazard area near the antennas, which was the proximate cause of the injury; or, that injury could have been prevented by the landlords controlling access to the RF hazard areas.  So, in reality, the lease language indemnity provision merely buys the landlords and their insurers a lawsuit against well-financed CWSPs with a litany of possible legal defenses.
Who Has Liability for RF injuries?
The CWSPs employ hundreds of RF engineers and are the technical experts on anything involving RF radiation and its ability to cause injury to humans.  Accordingly, prior to the lease being signed, the CWSPs have a “Duty to Warn” the unsuspecting landlords, and their insurers, of the RF radiation hazards associated with the lessee’s equipment.
By not divulging pertinent RF hazard information in the leases, the CWSPs may be attempting to use the 1996 Telecom Act as a shield in not warning the landlords. The Act precludes any discussion of RF radiation at municipal siting hearings. However, there is nothing contained in the language that enjoins the CWSPs from not informing the landlords of the hazards associated with RF radiation in the lease agreements they unilaterally create. Their actions are based solely on a business decision that has been used by other industries in the past…never mention the physical harm to humans that the product produces.
A landlord with full knowledge of their financial exposure to the liability assumed with the lease would likely either demand a greater monthly fee, or would decline permission to site on their property.  It stands to reason that no business person would trade hundreds of thousands or more in attorney and legal fees associated with an RF injury, for a few thousand dollars of rental income per month.
Legal Recourse
Once a lease has been executed without proper disclosure, “Fraud in the Inducement” can be alleged by the landlord asserting that the CWSP concealed material facts associated with the hazards of their operations/equipment. The CWSP will have known at the time of negotiating the contract that by not disclosing those material facts, the landlord might be more inclined to sign the lease. Additionally, theories of “Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation of Material Facts” may be brought against the CWSP.
Finally, there will be insistence that the CWSP has a “Non-Delegable Duty” to ensure full compliance with the FCC RF human exposure standard.  Federal law, 47 CFR 1.130, establishes the FCC licensee’s (CWSP) duty regarding RF safety, which cannot be transferred to the landlord.
Lack of Claims Doesn’t Mean Lack of Claimants
The insurers should not rely on the lack of RF injury claims to proclaim there isn’t a significant RF injury problem with workers being exposed to RF radiation on a daily basis.   The lack of claims is the result of injured parties being unaware that they were over-exposed to RF radiation.  Just one plaintiff’s attorney with an aggressive media campaign can quickly alter this lack of knowledge.  As the population of workers becomes aware of the hidden RF hazards and their potential for exposure, claims will likely be filed by the thousands, and long term litigation will result, in similar manner to the way asbestos evolved.
Gloria VogelGloria Vogel is senior vice president at N.Y.-based Drexel Hamilton, a service disabled veteran broker-dealer. She also teaches finance and metrics to graduate students as an adjunct professor at NYU-SCPS. Previously, Vogel was a contributing author on www.seekingalpha.com.  She worked at Swiss Re and was an All-Star equity research insurance analyst at several major investment banks, including Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2013/08/21/235352.htm

domenica 10 marzo 2013

Pericolo dalle radiofrequenze per le società di assicurazioni

Questa società di analisi di opportunità e rischi nel mondo assicurativo, indica quali sono i rischi (per i guadagni delle assicurazioni, ovviamente e non  per i cittadini !) provenienti dalle nuove tecnologie.  La prima è la radiazione di radiofrequenze.
E loro si soffermano solo sui danni ai lavoratori che entrano in contatto con le antenne, solamente !
Top Liability Expert A. M. Best Identifies Radofrequency Radiation

With Emerging Technologies That “Pose Significant Risks with Possible Long-Tail Losses”
Radiofrequency Radiation heads A.M. Best list that includes Cyber Risk, Fracking, and Nanotechnology.
Why take note of A.M. Best’s opinion? From its website www.ambest.com :
The largest and longest-established company devoted to issuing in-depth reports and financial strength ratings about insurance organizations.
Founded in 1899, A.M. Best Company is a full-service credit rating organization dedicated to serving the insurance industry. Policyholders refer to Best's ratings and analysis as a means of assessing the financial strength and creditworthiness of risk-bearing entities and investment vehicles.
From A.M. Best’s February 14, 2013 Best’s Briefing –
The insurance industry faces a constantly escalating level of exposure from rapidly developing technologies with risks that are not well understood. In many situations, the science associated with understanding these new risks is in the early stages of development. A.M. Best believes that it is critical for insurers to maintain vigilant oversight of emerging technologies as a critical component of their enterprise risk management system. Effective enterprise risk management encompasses identifying, evaluating and addressing risks that could threaten the earnings or viability of an insurer. This includes a prospective look at the underwriting exposures so that changes to policy language or underwriting criteria can properly manage losses for these new risks. An exposure which may present only insignificant insured losses at present, may bring future unprecedented losses . . .
. . . Insurers need to monitor the manner in which emerging technologies are, or are likely to be, deployed; the risks associated with their use; their residual or unintended impacts; and the manner in which the insurance policies may be called upon to cover losses.
Emerging Technology-Based Risks

RF (Radio Frequency) Radiation Risk – Today there are more than 600,000 cell sites in the United States and that number is expected to grow with the demand for faster, more reliable wireless devices. The risks associated with long-term use of cell phones, although much studied over the past 10 years, remain unclear. Dangers to the estimated 250,000 workers per year who come in close contact with cell phone antennas, which act at close range essentially as open microwave ovens can include eye damage, sterility and cognitive impairments. While workers of cellular companies are well trained on the potential dangers, other workers exposed to the antennas are often unaware of the health risks. The continued exponential growth of cellular towers will significantly increase exposure to these workers and others coming into close contact with high-energy cell phone antenna radiation.
Cyber Risk - Significant data breaches have become common (e.g., Citigroup, the International Monetary Fund, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Sony Online Entertainment, Hilton Worldwide, Marriott International Inc., Verizon, and Heartland Payment Systems). These can involve, for example, loss of sensitive financial information, personal data, and proprietary secrets. Identity theft alone is estimated to cost consumer and companies roughly $5 billion and $50 billion, respectively, each year. A 2009 study found that lost data cost U.S. companies in excess of $200 per lost customer file. In a 2011 study conducted among large U.S. companies more than 80% of information technology executives said that they had detected one or more recent attacks. Such exposures continue to evolve as companies are increasingly storing sensitive and confidential information with cloud vendors – a vendor that provides other companies with an infrastructure on which to store data or run applications – exposing data to new types of breaches.
Fracking Risk – Over the past 10 years horizontal fracturing (“fracking’) has become a big business and a highly contentious issue. The process involves pumping a pressurized fluid into a rock layer, which causes fracturing of the rock and release of petroleum, natural gas or other substances for extraction. The potential benefits are enormous; however, there are significant risks, including potential release of radioactive substances, radon (a known carcinogen) in the natural gas going into homes and potential chemical contamination of drinking water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined that fracking was the likely source of ground water contamination in at least 36 cases. There are a variety of other concerns including the potential for exposed workers to develop silicosis and that the process may lead to earthquakes.
Nanotechnology Risk - A wide variety if consumer and industry products are increasingly constructed a the molecular level, using materials from 1 to 100 nanometers in length (a nanometer is one billionth of a meter). Nanotechnology is employed in an array of products, including medicines and medical devices, glass, coatings, construction products, fire protection materials, vehicles, foods, textiles, cosmetics, optics and sports equipment. Nano-sized particles, however, act differently than materials built at normal scale, and existing chemical risk assessments are not suited for exposures arising from nanoparticles. Considerable concern has arisen that some nanoparticles may be toxic. With the exception of airborne nanoparticles entering the lungs, understanding of the effects of nanoparticles on the human body, including accumulation, metabolism and organ-specific toxicity is extremely limited. Concerns involve both the potential of immediate harms as well as harmful effects appearing after long latency periods. Of the technology risks now emerging, nanotechnology product exposures may be the most similar to asbestos. While it remains unclear whether nanoparticles can lead to asbestos-like losses, insurers need to carefully monitor developments of this emerging technology.
Conclusions
Insurers must evaluate constantly evolving technology exposures with the knowledge that existing scientific/technical understanding is often incomplete. A.M. Best will review companies’ understanding of their exposure to emerging risk, and their approaches to mitigating the risks within the framework of their enterprise risk management programs.

martedì 4 dicembre 2012

La sentenza della Cassazione ed il mondo delle assicurazioni

Vi segnalo questo interessante articolo, tratto da una rivista del settore assicurativo (e non da una rivista ambientalista ...).

Qui viene sviluppato l'argomento che questa sentenza italiana apre a future cause , anche negli USA, in quanto è un valido  precedente giudiziario.

Tra i GRANDI RISCHI che le aziende e le società assicurative debbono affrontare ci sono:

- catastrofi natirali
- terrorismo
- sicurezza informatica
- radiazioni da radiofrequenze    ....     !

In particolare la giornalista specifica il rischio da RF irradiate al personale che lavora sulle proprietà altrui per vari tipi di interventi, e che quindi possono rivendicare danni nei confronti di diversi soggetti, dal provider del servizio wireless, ai proprietari dello stabile, alle società di telefonia, ...

martedì 27 marzo 2012

La scatola nera delle assicurazioni

Avete visto che il Parlamento ha approvato un disegno di legge che introduce le 'scatole nere' da installare nell'auto, per poter ... accedere a sostanziosi (?!) sconti.

Mi sono posto il quesito su come funziona e come avviene la trasmissione delle informazioni-dati dal dispositivo all' Assicurazione.

Dopo più passaggi questa è la risposta della GENERTEL:


...........................................................................

con la presente La informiamo che i dati in questione vengono registrati dal dispositivo Quality Driver Box una volta ogni minuto, e vengono poi inviati al server durante la notte.
È possibile che la trasmissione notturna sia impedita dal posizionamento del veicolo in luoghi privi di copertura GPS e GSM/GPRS (es. garage sotterranei), e in tali casi essa sarà posticipata al momento in cui il veicolo sarà in grado di trasmettere al server i dati in questione

L’aggiornamento dei dati sul Portale Quality Driver invece avviene generalmente la mattina in un orario compreso tra le 10 e le 13.

Rimanendo a Sua disposizione per ogni eventuale necessità, Le porgiamo cordiali saluti.


Quality Level
fb
..........................................................................

QUINDI, il dispositivo trasmette - come uno smart-phone - con connessione GSM/GRPS una volta al giorno (di notte se è all'aperto ) oppure appena si esce ad es. dal garage.

Sembrerebbe che l'aggiornamento del Portale non coinvolga il dispositivo.

CONCLUSIONI ?

Se si parcheggia di notte in un punto dove arriva il segnale GSM (come dire, 'dove il cellulare prende') non dovrebbero esserci problemi per le persone elettrosensibili.