Legal Issues and Insurances

It wasn't  too long ago that many substances or mechanical processes long declared harmless by medical and administrative authorities (tobacco, asbestos, X rays, etc) turned out to be in fact over time responsible for the death of large numbers of people. Similarly, as the harmful impact of different sources of electromagnetic pollution today are increasingly documented, many users are getting worried.

A spate of lawsuits?

Several such lawsuits have already been filed by victims (or their families) against cell phones manufacturers and/or operators in several countries. In almost all cases so far they have failed. At most in some cases the parties reached a settlement and the plaintiffs agreed to drop their lawsuit in exchange of financial compensations. Yet as more and more information surfaces that confirms a clear correlation between extensive cell phone use and an explosion of brain cancer cases in the years to come, many more similar lawsuits are likely.

Insurance companies are running for the exits

A solid indicator of how seriously this threat is considered in economic terms is the fact, little-know by the pubic at large, that insurance companies have already taken steps to reject coverage of risks associated to any of the many sources of electromagnetic pollution. Even worse, re-insurance companies (i.e. insurance companies that insure other insurance companies against catastrophic losses caused by large-scale disasters) have done the same, leaving millions of companies unprotected against possible lawsuits from clients or employees. Company owners would therefore be well advised to limit as much as possible their customers or their staffs exposure to electromagnetic fields.

THE solution?

Does this mean that the EMF-Bioshield® products are THE solution that will allow companies to be forgiven for their past negligence? Certainly not. To a degree, one can understand why cell phones manufacturers and operators refuse to acknowledge the problem because, like cigarette manufacturers not long ago, they will never openly admit that their products and services are harmful for fear of being sued, precisely. Additionally, while EMF-Bioshield®/Tel can protect a recent cell phone or WiFi user, it cannot repair damages already caused to a user who's been using a cell phone anywhere from one to several hours a day for years. At most it can limit future harm, but its protective effect is not retroactive.

The articles listed below cover either known lawsuits that have already been filed in a number of countries, or about the refusal of insurance companies to cover damages caused by different forms of electromagnetic pollution.

Articles about lawsuits filed against cell phones manufacturers and/or operators

- "Case on Health Risk From Cellphones Is Back in Court" - Wall Street Journal - 11.22.2015.
- "Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, court rules" - The Telegraph (UK) - 10.19.2012.

- "Couple sues to have cell tower removed" - Herald News (Canada) - 12.03.2011.
- "Lawsuits could have broad ramifications for the industry" - Sun Sentinel - 10.02.2005.
- "Class action suit filed against cell phone makers" - Computer World - 04.20.2001.

Articles about insurance companies refusal to insure against consequences of electromagnetic pollution

- "Insurance Companies Won't Cover Cell Phone Brain Tumor Product Liability Lawsuits" -  07.20.2015
- "Wi-Fi Alert: School officials may be personally liable for exposing children to wireless radiation" -  03.21.2015
- "Lloyd’s of London excludes liability coverage for RF/EMF claims" -  (March 2015)
- "School Boards Left On The Hook For Wi-Fi Injuries" - Bridge News Service (Canada) - (02.26.2015)
- "Swiss Re Does Not Re-insure Mobile Phones for Health Risks" - Towards Better Health - (12.30.2014)