From: Daniels, Mike [mailto:Mike.Daniels@lloyds.

com]
Sent: April 8, 2015 7:59 AM
To: 'Dennis and Sharon Noble'
Subject: RE: Lloyd's exclusion re. Electromagnetic Fields. (ref 1733/2015)
Dear Mr/Mrs Noble
Thank you again for your email.
Further to our last exchange, I have included below some further comments directly from CFC Underwriting.
Additionally, these same comments have also been supplied to Cody MacGreagor of Special Risk Insurance
Managers, and (I understand) are in turn being passed to Kelly Reynolds of UIB:
Hello Cody,
As far as we are aware, the electromagnetic field exclusion is a standard London market exclusion. Naturally I cannot
speak for every single insurer and syndicate in London because some may be willing to remove the exclusion which is
their prerogative, but the insured might want to double check their CGL wording given the misunderstanding here.
In response to the email below, and at the risk of repeating myself, the electromagnetic exclusion has always been in CFC
policies and formed part of the terms and conditions offered to the insured prior to binding. Indeed the broker asked
questions about the exclusion prior to binding, and we responded explaining the exclusion has always been in our
wording, certainly since 2008 (copy email attached) so the broker was definitely aware of the exclusion at the quotation
stage, and then proceeded to bind the account, so if the insured was unaware of this exclusion and has concerns they
need to raise this with their broker, not CFC.
Secondly, as I mentioned yesterday, the insured have complained directly about this issue to Lloyds of London. In reply
(and as per the attached), the Lloyds complaints office have defended our response and stance, before going on to
explain to the insured it is not reasonable for Underwriters to divulge their reasoning behind any terms and conditions,
as these are business decisions.. Accordingly and acting on the advice of the Lloyds complaints office, we are unwilling
to provide definitions of undefined terms; to provide interpretations or explanations of any of our policy terms, conditions
or exclusions; or to provide answers to hypothetical scenarios, because in doing so we may prejudice our position in the
event of a claim.
In summary we are not willing to elaborate any further on the points raised below. As per the email from Mike Daniels
attached, although he can see no reason to ask CFC to look at the matter any further, the Insured are welcome to invoke
stage 2 of the Lloyds of London formal complaints process, and in doing so the insured will need to explain why they feel
our position is unjustified.
Your questions have been repeated on numerous occasion, so I will again reiterate that I do not think it reasonable for
underwriters to explain meaning behind each and every exclusion within a policy, as these are business decisions. As I
have said before, Business decisions concerning whether or not to underwrite, renew or cancel particular insurances and
the terms, conditions and premiums that apply are made by representatives for the individual Lloyd's underwriters.
Those underwriters, like any other insurer, are at liberty to underwrite risks, or not, at whatever premium and terms
they deem appropriate in the circumstances. If your acquaintance is concerned that the exclusion was not highlighted
at renewal in a proper manner, then I am afraid that this matter should be taken forward with the retail broker.
Regards

Michael Daniels
Case Officer
Complaints
Lloyd's

Telephone
+44 (0)1634 39 2003
www.lloyds.com
SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT

From: Dennis and Sharon Noble [mailto:dsnoble@shaw.ca]

Sent: 07 April 2015 17:14
To: Daniels, Mike
Cc: W C McKenzie
Subject: RE: Lloyd's exclusion re. Electromagnetic Fields. (ref 1733/2015)

Dear Mr. Daniels,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your confirming that the information given by CFC agent was correct when he
stated that the waiver applied to all policies.
As I said in my last email, I fully understand and accept that Underwriters not wishing to provide an explanation for the
application of the waiver.
Sir, I do believe, though, that the underwriters have an obligation to explain terms employed in the waiver and the
conditions under which the waiver is applied. Because the terms were not defined nor conditions expanded upon within
the policy, on Mr. McKenzies behalf I am asking for this information. Without this information how is a policyholder to
understand this waiver and how Lloyds will apply it should a claim be submitted?
1) Does this waiver pertain to exposure to non-ionizing radiation from all wireless devices, and not only to
mobile phones. The i.e. instead of e.g. has led to my asking for this clarification. I believe this is
important to understand so that Mr. McKenzie can take appropriate precautions himself and alert
others.
2) The agent includes the word continuous as a condition for the exclusion. If the exclusion applies to all
wireless radiation-emitting devices, could you please tell me how continuous is interpreted by
Lloyds? Would it apply to devices such as cell phones that are used only during the day but are turned
off at night?
3) The exclusion includes the term noise. Could you please define this term?

Mr. Daniels, if you are unable to provide the answer to these questions, could you please direct my
inquiries to the appropriate person?
Thank you.
Regards,
Sharon Noble