Given that the ongoing Icelandic volcanic eruption had disrupted air travel over one of the world’s most lucrative airspace, could this “inconvenience” eventually bankrupt travel insurance providers?
By: Ringo Bones
Fortunately, no loss of life has yet been reported on the ongoing Icelandic volcanic eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull Glacier Volcano, but it seems to me that the insurance pay-outs from such “inconvenience” has a high probability of rivaling that of the insurance pay-outs of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. According to IATA, the resulting ash cloud that lead to the suspension of commercial air travel over the affected European airspace had been costing major airline companies on average 200-million US dollars a day.
British Airways and other major European air carriers have had their share prices go down due to the resulting air travel chaos. Millions of dollars have already been lost when perishables destined for European markets that had to be air freighted never got to their intended customers, like flowers from Kenya. Not only did the Icelandic volcanic eruption did a number on European commerce, it also disrupted the travel plans of European VIPs – even US President Barack Obama – indefinitely postponing their plans to attend the State Funeral of the late Polish president Lech Kaczynski.
Volcanic ash is especially damaging to modern jet engines because the ash is primarily composed of very fine glass particles that can gunk up as it melts within the turbines in the high temperature interior of jet engines. The ongoing eruption of the Icelandic volcano also produces a greater quantity of ash because it is situated in a glacier. Unfortunately, the last time the volcano erupted was in 1820s and Victorian era gentleman-scientists probably overlooked it due to its remote location. Thus making predictions on when it erupts that much difficult.
From an insurance company’s perspective, the air travel chaos caused by the volcanic eruption to one of the world’s most lucrative airspace can be a travel insurance provider’s and airfreight insurance provider’s liability nightmare. Especially those who are obligated to pay damages that includes care and loss of services, not to mention those that still pay for any mental anguish incurred by their policyholders. Given the austere fiscal environment of our post global credit crunch world, British Airways had even stated that they don’t have enough insurance money to refund stranded passengers.
Will the over 17,000 flights cancelled across European airspace – not to mention incoming Transatlantic air traffic from America - eventually drive airline companies with insufficient financial backing to the brink of bankruptcy? Only time will tell since Iceland’s geologist have forecasted that the volcanic eruptions will probably continue until the 21st of April. And if it does continue until mid July, tourists around the world planning their European summer vacation will certainly have their travel itineraries rescheduled. Ruining Europe’s still-recovering tourism industry and becoming every insurance company’s worst nightmare.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Fault-Tree Analysis: Still A Relevant Risk Assessment Tool?
First formulated in order to assess the probability of failure of fairly complex systems over thirty years ago is the fault-tree analysis still applicable in current assessment of today’s complex systems?
By: Ringo Bones
Even though there’s a growing perception of the general public’s declining trust in risk management since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, it is quite ironic to ponder that risk assessment has further matured since that tragic event. As long as they had been around or had been tenured by insurance companies, risk analysts often start by dividing hazards into two parts – namely exposure and effect. Even though they’ve had it down to a science, insurance companies cannot yet predict whether any single driver will be killed or injured in an accident, even though they can estimate the annual number of crash-related deaths and injuries in the United States with considerable precision. With the salient point in the development of risk assessment during the past three decades had been in large part the search of ways to determine the extent of risks that have very little precedent. Like the link between cellular phone / mobile phone use and brain tumor risks and a more objective assessment of catastrophic global warming risks.
Risk assessments of complex systems are more often than not defined by the enumeration of failure modes. A common technique called failure mode and effect analysis where risk analysts try to identify all the events that might lead to a system breakdown. Usually when all the failure modes have been enumerated, the fault-tree analysis has been routinely used since the last 35 years or so, as an aid to estimate the likelihood of failure of any given mode.
First utilized on a large scale by Norman C. Rasmussen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology back in 1975 to study nuclear reactor safety. Although specific details of his risk assessment estimates were disputed under peer review, fault-tree analyses are now routinely used in the nuclear industry. As a rule, a fault tree graphically represents how the subsystems of a larger system depend on one another and how a failure of one part affects key operations. Once a particular fault tree of a particular system is constructed, one need to only estimate the probability that once individual elements do fail, the same probability governs the set of circumstances that lead to the entire system’s failure to function.
Due to the method’s good track record of formulating more effective risk mitigation while reducing costs in its implementation, the plane-maker Boeing had been for sometime now been applying fault-tree analysis in the design of large aircraft. Company engineers have identified and remedied a number of potential problems in passenger aircraft design. Such as vulnerabilities caused by routing multiple control lines through the same area, which can be a recipe for disaster during a bird-strike incident. Even though it is already too late for their chemical plant in Bhopal, India, Union Carbide had also employed the technique in designing processes for chemical plants. Particularly in deciding where to situate their plants and in evaluating the risks of transporting particular chemicals. But as a risk assessment tool, is fault-tree analysis still relevant today?
Maybe Barbara Ehrenreich was right for lambasting the overly-optimistic and cavalier attitude of Wall Street when it comes to risk assessment because the fat-cats had never discussed using fault-tree analysis to examine the vulnerability of the global financial system’s propensity to failure. As a fairly complex system, fault-tree analysis could have been used to examine the global financial system’s failure modes that could have averted the widespread collapse of banks and other financial institutions deemed to big to fail back in 2008.
In our eternal struggle for the search for an effective carbon neutral energy source, fault-tree analysis could be used to assess the risks of constructing more nuclear fission power plants in comparison to the global warming risks posed by coal-fired power plants. As the only feasible carbon neutral electricity generating power plant that is here right now, a renewed risk assessment of nuclear fission technology deserves reevaluation until we can find something better that truly works.
By: Ringo Bones
Even though there’s a growing perception of the general public’s declining trust in risk management since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, it is quite ironic to ponder that risk assessment has further matured since that tragic event. As long as they had been around or had been tenured by insurance companies, risk analysts often start by dividing hazards into two parts – namely exposure and effect. Even though they’ve had it down to a science, insurance companies cannot yet predict whether any single driver will be killed or injured in an accident, even though they can estimate the annual number of crash-related deaths and injuries in the United States with considerable precision. With the salient point in the development of risk assessment during the past three decades had been in large part the search of ways to determine the extent of risks that have very little precedent. Like the link between cellular phone / mobile phone use and brain tumor risks and a more objective assessment of catastrophic global warming risks.
Risk assessments of complex systems are more often than not defined by the enumeration of failure modes. A common technique called failure mode and effect analysis where risk analysts try to identify all the events that might lead to a system breakdown. Usually when all the failure modes have been enumerated, the fault-tree analysis has been routinely used since the last 35 years or so, as an aid to estimate the likelihood of failure of any given mode.
First utilized on a large scale by Norman C. Rasmussen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology back in 1975 to study nuclear reactor safety. Although specific details of his risk assessment estimates were disputed under peer review, fault-tree analyses are now routinely used in the nuclear industry. As a rule, a fault tree graphically represents how the subsystems of a larger system depend on one another and how a failure of one part affects key operations. Once a particular fault tree of a particular system is constructed, one need to only estimate the probability that once individual elements do fail, the same probability governs the set of circumstances that lead to the entire system’s failure to function.
Due to the method’s good track record of formulating more effective risk mitigation while reducing costs in its implementation, the plane-maker Boeing had been for sometime now been applying fault-tree analysis in the design of large aircraft. Company engineers have identified and remedied a number of potential problems in passenger aircraft design. Such as vulnerabilities caused by routing multiple control lines through the same area, which can be a recipe for disaster during a bird-strike incident. Even though it is already too late for their chemical plant in Bhopal, India, Union Carbide had also employed the technique in designing processes for chemical plants. Particularly in deciding where to situate their plants and in evaluating the risks of transporting particular chemicals. But as a risk assessment tool, is fault-tree analysis still relevant today?
Maybe Barbara Ehrenreich was right for lambasting the overly-optimistic and cavalier attitude of Wall Street when it comes to risk assessment because the fat-cats had never discussed using fault-tree analysis to examine the vulnerability of the global financial system’s propensity to failure. As a fairly complex system, fault-tree analysis could have been used to examine the global financial system’s failure modes that could have averted the widespread collapse of banks and other financial institutions deemed to big to fail back in 2008.
In our eternal struggle for the search for an effective carbon neutral energy source, fault-tree analysis could be used to assess the risks of constructing more nuclear fission power plants in comparison to the global warming risks posed by coal-fired power plants. As the only feasible carbon neutral electricity generating power plant that is here right now, a renewed risk assessment of nuclear fission technology deserves reevaluation until we can find something better that truly works.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Reputational Risk Insurance for Celebrity Product Endorsement
Given the recent “transgressions” of Tiger Woods had made his sponsors backing away en masse, would a reputational risk insurance of celebrities endorsing their sponsors’ products be a good idea?
By: Ringo Bones
The recent high-profile “transgressions” of G-Rated family-friendly golf megastar Tiger Woods not only sent the tabloid press community into their trademarked coverage frenzy, but also made Tiger Woods’ sponsors – whose products he’s been so busy endorsing for more than ten years – backing away en masse. As one of the golfing world’s top cash cow who managed to earn over a billion dollars during his career that might yet still to reach its prime. Is Tiger Woods not only unnecessarily endangering his own golfing career, but also the long-term economic viability of the sport of golf as well?
High-profile celebrity product endorsers whose reputation leaves much to be desired has been de rigueur in the Rock and Pop music world for a long time now. Remember W. Axl Rose, the mercurial frontman of Hair Metal era Rock outfit Guns N’ Roses? Despite of his reputation, Axl’s “unique” singing style made every live concert sound engineer notice the frequency response band limitations of Shure SM57 Beta microphones that made them better “plan” on how to use these idiosyncratic microphones on stage in live Rock concerts. Thus making such dynamic microphones a mainstay in Shure’s product lineup despite of a non-flat frequency response. Even someone like Paris Hilton, who’s name is unlikely to be ever used with the phrase “moral turpitude” on the same sentence manages to endorse top of the line beauty products from the world’s top cosmetics manufacturers.
Although in the multi million dollar endorsement contracts world of professional sports, the established “overlords” are not so forgiving when it comes to “transgressions” and “improprieties”. A few years ago, a promising basketball superstar named Kobe Bryant who’s sporting career has yet to reach its prime also has his sponsors moving away en masse after his own “transgressions” became supermarket tabloid fodder. And now, the problem plaguing Tiger Woods not only threaten the famed golfer’s bottom line, but also the bottom line of the golfing world whom his golfing career has seemed to prop-up since 1996. Can the establishment of a form of reputational risk insurance be of help on the fiscal aspect of this debacle?
Reputational risk insurance could be modeled after occupational health insurance or permanent health insurance where a reputational risk policy provides the policyholder with a source of income akin to “disability benefits” when the policyholder can no longer make money from the high-profile celebrity who endorses their products. Instead of just “abruptly” terminating their fiscal obligation with the celebrity endorsee in a fiscally unjust manner.
Reputational risk insurance might also be used to provide benefits when the high-profile celebrity is no longer able to perform substantially all of the contractual acts that he or she signed when endorsing the product(s) of his or her main sponsor. This could be either due to marital “transgressions” or other “impropriety” of reputational nature. Maybe it is high time that the product endorsement world should find ways to insure themselves against vagaries such as these in order to maintain fiscal stability.
By: Ringo Bones
The recent high-profile “transgressions” of G-Rated family-friendly golf megastar Tiger Woods not only sent the tabloid press community into their trademarked coverage frenzy, but also made Tiger Woods’ sponsors – whose products he’s been so busy endorsing for more than ten years – backing away en masse. As one of the golfing world’s top cash cow who managed to earn over a billion dollars during his career that might yet still to reach its prime. Is Tiger Woods not only unnecessarily endangering his own golfing career, but also the long-term economic viability of the sport of golf as well?
High-profile celebrity product endorsers whose reputation leaves much to be desired has been de rigueur in the Rock and Pop music world for a long time now. Remember W. Axl Rose, the mercurial frontman of Hair Metal era Rock outfit Guns N’ Roses? Despite of his reputation, Axl’s “unique” singing style made every live concert sound engineer notice the frequency response band limitations of Shure SM57 Beta microphones that made them better “plan” on how to use these idiosyncratic microphones on stage in live Rock concerts. Thus making such dynamic microphones a mainstay in Shure’s product lineup despite of a non-flat frequency response. Even someone like Paris Hilton, who’s name is unlikely to be ever used with the phrase “moral turpitude” on the same sentence manages to endorse top of the line beauty products from the world’s top cosmetics manufacturers.
Although in the multi million dollar endorsement contracts world of professional sports, the established “overlords” are not so forgiving when it comes to “transgressions” and “improprieties”. A few years ago, a promising basketball superstar named Kobe Bryant who’s sporting career has yet to reach its prime also has his sponsors moving away en masse after his own “transgressions” became supermarket tabloid fodder. And now, the problem plaguing Tiger Woods not only threaten the famed golfer’s bottom line, but also the bottom line of the golfing world whom his golfing career has seemed to prop-up since 1996. Can the establishment of a form of reputational risk insurance be of help on the fiscal aspect of this debacle?
Reputational risk insurance could be modeled after occupational health insurance or permanent health insurance where a reputational risk policy provides the policyholder with a source of income akin to “disability benefits” when the policyholder can no longer make money from the high-profile celebrity who endorses their products. Instead of just “abruptly” terminating their fiscal obligation with the celebrity endorsee in a fiscally unjust manner.
Reputational risk insurance might also be used to provide benefits when the high-profile celebrity is no longer able to perform substantially all of the contractual acts that he or she signed when endorsing the product(s) of his or her main sponsor. This could be either due to marital “transgressions” or other “impropriety” of reputational nature. Maybe it is high time that the product endorsement world should find ways to insure themselves against vagaries such as these in order to maintain fiscal stability.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Creativity Disability Insurance
As a viable part of the global economy, should folks with creativity related jobs be provided an insurance system against creativity disability?
By: Ringo Bones
Picture this scenario: a very lucrative crime fiction writer whose works so far – lets say 20 of them – managed to crack the top 5 of the New York Times bestseller list, eleven of them even reached the number one spot. Not only that, his or her books managed to become a required reading of every major law enforcement agency around the world – akin to Tom Clancy’s The Hunt for Red October becoming a required reading for US Navy’s cadets-in-training. Thus making the writer a veritable cash cow. Then imagine our writer out of whim joining some “maverick” Evangelical cult that made him or her no longer able to write those gristly but fictional ways of committing murder. Thus resulting in the loss of his or her multi-million dollar a year livelihood. If this happens, what does his or her financial estate do? Sue the cult or collect some form of insurance?
Even though there might have been a legal precedent with regards to this scenario, as of late, I’ve been too lazy to check out the current US Supreme Court docket about legal and / or financial liabilities when it comes to persons affected by creativity disability. Especially if creativity is the main source of livelihood of that person in question. But the question now is, is some kind of creativity disability insurance economically viable enough to be underwritten by today’s insurance providers?
After checking on existing insurance policies on offer, I think for it to be economically viable, creativity disability insurance could be modeled after occupational disability insurance. Unfortunately, occupational disability insurance – also called permanent health insurance – is quite a complicated subject that often grabs the news headlines upon claims refusals. Your typical occupational disability insurance policy provides the policyholder with a source of income in the form of disability benefits when the policyholder is no longer able to perform substantially all of the material acts of his or her occupation, as designated in the policy. Should disability benefits also be applicable for those working in the creative fields like novelists and songwriters?
But it can easily get complicated from the point of view of the disabled – even the creatively disabled – claimant. Imagine the claimant having a firm belief of the Protestant Work Ethic and has a moral perception that receiving easy money is morally reprehensible. In other words, the claimant wants to retain the ability to engage in a sure form of employment while collecting disability insurance benefits. Might this prove in the end to be economically essential, in which the insurance company could make a creativity disability insurance with such proviso at a much lower premium – thus making it widely available?
Returning to the scenario I’ve mentioned, could this be resolved or eased by the existence of some form of creativity disability insurance; or is the existing civil court systems around the world could easily handle this as a “mere” torts and damages compensation settlement case? Given the rarity of such cases, its safe to say that I don’t know – yet. Maybe, the only really viable solution to this dilemma is for anyone who works in the creativity fields to become more empowered with the assistance of their friendly neighborhood broker in selecting the right insurance products. Thus, enabling them to make appropriate decisions with respect to benefit design, understand the policy’s wording and how it will impact them in the event of a claim arises.
By: Ringo Bones
Picture this scenario: a very lucrative crime fiction writer whose works so far – lets say 20 of them – managed to crack the top 5 of the New York Times bestseller list, eleven of them even reached the number one spot. Not only that, his or her books managed to become a required reading of every major law enforcement agency around the world – akin to Tom Clancy’s The Hunt for Red October becoming a required reading for US Navy’s cadets-in-training. Thus making the writer a veritable cash cow. Then imagine our writer out of whim joining some “maverick” Evangelical cult that made him or her no longer able to write those gristly but fictional ways of committing murder. Thus resulting in the loss of his or her multi-million dollar a year livelihood. If this happens, what does his or her financial estate do? Sue the cult or collect some form of insurance?
Even though there might have been a legal precedent with regards to this scenario, as of late, I’ve been too lazy to check out the current US Supreme Court docket about legal and / or financial liabilities when it comes to persons affected by creativity disability. Especially if creativity is the main source of livelihood of that person in question. But the question now is, is some kind of creativity disability insurance economically viable enough to be underwritten by today’s insurance providers?
After checking on existing insurance policies on offer, I think for it to be economically viable, creativity disability insurance could be modeled after occupational disability insurance. Unfortunately, occupational disability insurance – also called permanent health insurance – is quite a complicated subject that often grabs the news headlines upon claims refusals. Your typical occupational disability insurance policy provides the policyholder with a source of income in the form of disability benefits when the policyholder is no longer able to perform substantially all of the material acts of his or her occupation, as designated in the policy. Should disability benefits also be applicable for those working in the creative fields like novelists and songwriters?
But it can easily get complicated from the point of view of the disabled – even the creatively disabled – claimant. Imagine the claimant having a firm belief of the Protestant Work Ethic and has a moral perception that receiving easy money is morally reprehensible. In other words, the claimant wants to retain the ability to engage in a sure form of employment while collecting disability insurance benefits. Might this prove in the end to be economically essential, in which the insurance company could make a creativity disability insurance with such proviso at a much lower premium – thus making it widely available?
Returning to the scenario I’ve mentioned, could this be resolved or eased by the existence of some form of creativity disability insurance; or is the existing civil court systems around the world could easily handle this as a “mere” torts and damages compensation settlement case? Given the rarity of such cases, its safe to say that I don’t know – yet. Maybe, the only really viable solution to this dilemma is for anyone who works in the creativity fields to become more empowered with the assistance of their friendly neighborhood broker in selecting the right insurance products. Thus, enabling them to make appropriate decisions with respect to benefit design, understand the policy’s wording and how it will impact them in the event of a claim arises.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Do Pessimists Make Good Insurance Company CEOs?
Given that the primary business of insurance companies has been on dwelling on what’s the worst that could happen, does this make pessimist prime candidates for insurance company CEOs?
By: Ringo Bones
Maybe that bloke named Murphy who they named Murphy’s Law should have started his own insurance company, who knows, he could have made a bundle – or what about Friedrich Nietzsche? Just a few historically famous “pessimists” who would have made top notch CEOs for today’s insurance companies. A will to power ones investment portfolio? Or is it just a routine risk management as usual?
After reading Bright-Sided by Barbara Ehrenreich, a pet theory of mine has been renewed once again. A theory pertaining to why people with a naturally pessimistic disposition are better suited to be insurance company CEOs compared to their cheery, chirpy counterparts – especially ones that practice unnecessary discrimination when it suits them while maintaining a happy disposition. Despite the howls of protest of those cheery CEOs that ran their company to the ground during the Bush Administration over the accuracy of Barbara Ehrenreich’s pet theories on why Wall Street buckled only proves Ehrenreich’s insights on this contentious issue to be self-evident. Even though recent findings in cultural anthropology and archeology had always tried to tell us that too much positive thinking – especially when combined with leaving things to chance – could be humanity’s undoing.
Humanity’s earliest ancestors manage to survive through a series of supposedly insurmountable challenges like climactic extremes, super-volcanic eruptions and earthquakes that would make those catastrophic tragedies that happened within our living memory seem tame in comparison. Thanks to humanity’s intelligence and wit – largely driven by constantly worrying about the worst that’s yet to come. In other words - pessimism. Could it be that Natural Selection is Mother Nature’s very own risk assessment strategy? If humanity manages to survive through the worst aspects of climate change that is yet to come, it is safe to bet that it is because we finally took action on the most pessimistic ramblings of Al Gore over the dangers of climate change.
Unfortunately, corporate America has a habit of firing overtly cautious employees with pessimistic disposition. The very same people who could have warned the impending subprime mortgage crisis that can trace its roots back in 2006. The Wall Street overlords have no use for such folks, favoring instead to “yes men” too spineless to point out to their very own mistakes and shortcomings. Sadder still, this corporate oversight grew in popularity during the time when Ronald Reagan ruled the Free World where Wall Street amassed huge profits during the “Decade of Greed” of the 1980s.
Bright-Sided by Barbara Ehrenreich really did point out the culture of a “happiness delusion” that undermined the true potential of corporate America. An overtly positive thinking without a safety net, or worse still – using the ideology of happiness delusion as a safety net, really did almost destroy America. During the 1980s, this happiness delusion became an industry in itself with books, office accessories, posters, etc. and it did become mandatory in the corporate world – especially Wall Street. I just hope that an overtly positive thinking won’t be used as a fairy-dust against failure anymore. Folks that worry so much in working out solutions in making good out of worst situations now need the much-deserved commendation they were once ignored. Maybe somebody should hire Barbara Ehrenreich as a risk assessor.
By: Ringo Bones
Maybe that bloke named Murphy who they named Murphy’s Law should have started his own insurance company, who knows, he could have made a bundle – or what about Friedrich Nietzsche? Just a few historically famous “pessimists” who would have made top notch CEOs for today’s insurance companies. A will to power ones investment portfolio? Or is it just a routine risk management as usual?
After reading Bright-Sided by Barbara Ehrenreich, a pet theory of mine has been renewed once again. A theory pertaining to why people with a naturally pessimistic disposition are better suited to be insurance company CEOs compared to their cheery, chirpy counterparts – especially ones that practice unnecessary discrimination when it suits them while maintaining a happy disposition. Despite the howls of protest of those cheery CEOs that ran their company to the ground during the Bush Administration over the accuracy of Barbara Ehrenreich’s pet theories on why Wall Street buckled only proves Ehrenreich’s insights on this contentious issue to be self-evident. Even though recent findings in cultural anthropology and archeology had always tried to tell us that too much positive thinking – especially when combined with leaving things to chance – could be humanity’s undoing.
Humanity’s earliest ancestors manage to survive through a series of supposedly insurmountable challenges like climactic extremes, super-volcanic eruptions and earthquakes that would make those catastrophic tragedies that happened within our living memory seem tame in comparison. Thanks to humanity’s intelligence and wit – largely driven by constantly worrying about the worst that’s yet to come. In other words - pessimism. Could it be that Natural Selection is Mother Nature’s very own risk assessment strategy? If humanity manages to survive through the worst aspects of climate change that is yet to come, it is safe to bet that it is because we finally took action on the most pessimistic ramblings of Al Gore over the dangers of climate change.
Unfortunately, corporate America has a habit of firing overtly cautious employees with pessimistic disposition. The very same people who could have warned the impending subprime mortgage crisis that can trace its roots back in 2006. The Wall Street overlords have no use for such folks, favoring instead to “yes men” too spineless to point out to their very own mistakes and shortcomings. Sadder still, this corporate oversight grew in popularity during the time when Ronald Reagan ruled the Free World where Wall Street amassed huge profits during the “Decade of Greed” of the 1980s.
Bright-Sided by Barbara Ehrenreich really did point out the culture of a “happiness delusion” that undermined the true potential of corporate America. An overtly positive thinking without a safety net, or worse still – using the ideology of happiness delusion as a safety net, really did almost destroy America. During the 1980s, this happiness delusion became an industry in itself with books, office accessories, posters, etc. and it did become mandatory in the corporate world – especially Wall Street. I just hope that an overtly positive thinking won’t be used as a fairy-dust against failure anymore. Folks that worry so much in working out solutions in making good out of worst situations now need the much-deserved commendation they were once ignored. Maybe somebody should hire Barbara Ehrenreich as a risk assessor.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Should Rock Stars Get Professional Indemnity Insurance?
As our contemporary society gets more and more litigious, should Rock Stars – scapegoats du jour since Ronald Reagan ruled the free world – have professional indemnity insurance?
By: Ringo Bones
For those of us old enough to remember the PMRC Rock Music censorship debacle and the “frivolous” wrongful death lawsuit against Judas Priest, We – the music loving public - managed to reach a consensus back then that Tipper Gore’s PMRC is nothing more than a US Government scheme to misdirect the American public’s ire against Sen. John McCain, Charles Keating and the rest of the folks that brought us the Lincoln Savings & Loan Scandal of 1989. But does the “Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics” warning label still hold enough political clout to protect Rock Stars against any liability pertaining to professional indemnity related lawsuits? After all, as professional singers / musicians they do fall under the legalese purview of professional indemnity, right?
Professional indemnity insurance is usually used to protect you – the practitioner of your chosen profession – from legal action taken for losses incurred as a result of your professional advice – i.e. what you say regardless of whether it is based on opinion or fact. Under existing law, professional indemnity insurance provides indemnity cover if your client (do fans and audience members count?) suffers a loss - either - material, financial or physical – directly attributed to negligent acts. Frivolous lawsuit or not, does this mean that Rock stars should be held accountable for what they say / preach?
But this does raise problems – especially when it comes to the fidelity of the playback medium that the artistic works of these so-called Rock Stars are delivered. Did Lady Gaga really said “F-F-F_ Her Face” when heard through a lo-fi audio playback system – especially when the medium is a highly compressed and somewhat not-so-pristine MP3 download? This is probably the reason why an overwhelming majority of record label executives are not so gaga when it comes to sound quality. Maybe it is all down to liability? – enough said.
By: Ringo Bones
For those of us old enough to remember the PMRC Rock Music censorship debacle and the “frivolous” wrongful death lawsuit against Judas Priest, We – the music loving public - managed to reach a consensus back then that Tipper Gore’s PMRC is nothing more than a US Government scheme to misdirect the American public’s ire against Sen. John McCain, Charles Keating and the rest of the folks that brought us the Lincoln Savings & Loan Scandal of 1989. But does the “Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics” warning label still hold enough political clout to protect Rock Stars against any liability pertaining to professional indemnity related lawsuits? After all, as professional singers / musicians they do fall under the legalese purview of professional indemnity, right?
Professional indemnity insurance is usually used to protect you – the practitioner of your chosen profession – from legal action taken for losses incurred as a result of your professional advice – i.e. what you say regardless of whether it is based on opinion or fact. Under existing law, professional indemnity insurance provides indemnity cover if your client (do fans and audience members count?) suffers a loss - either - material, financial or physical – directly attributed to negligent acts. Frivolous lawsuit or not, does this mean that Rock stars should be held accountable for what they say / preach?
But this does raise problems – especially when it comes to the fidelity of the playback medium that the artistic works of these so-called Rock Stars are delivered. Did Lady Gaga really said “F-F-F_ Her Face” when heard through a lo-fi audio playback system – especially when the medium is a highly compressed and somewhat not-so-pristine MP3 download? This is probably the reason why an overwhelming majority of record label executives are not so gaga when it comes to sound quality. Maybe it is all down to liability? – enough said.
Should Audio Gear Manufacturers Get Product Liability Insurance?
Given everyone’s much greater awareness of the health of our hearing, should audio gear manufacturers avail themselves of product liability insurance in case of future class action lawsuits?
By: Ringo Bones
For some years now, the tobacco industry had been experiencing it first hand after a series of class action lawsuits put forth by cigarette smokers now suffering from lung cancer and other related diseases. Suing them for failing to fully warn against the full extent of the dangers of tobacco use. Given the relative ”success” of these lawsuits from the standpoint of the plaintiffs, will similar class action lawsuits will soon be besetting audio gear manufacturers after legions of Generation X-ers figure out why they can’t hear anymore?
If you happen to sell, supply or deliver goods – even in the form of repair service – you may need coverage against claims of goods causing injury, death or damage. Product liability insurance covers you if any of these events happen to another business or person by the failure of your product or the product you are selling. From a legalese standpoint, product liability is the area of the law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and the rest who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. Usually, there are three major types of product liability claims: manufacturing defect, design defect, and the failure to warn – also known as marketing defect.
While the tobacco industry – more often than not – had always resorted to that legal gray area of knowing only the harmful effects - i.e. health risks - of their product only several centuries after they started selling tobacco products to their customers, the warning signs of hearing loss usually manifest itself in very obvious ways. As in pain - hence the threshold of pain part of our hearing. But is this self-evident truth be enough to protect hi-fi and public-address systems manufacturers against future class-action lawsuits pertaining to hearing loss?
Warning signs and legal disclaimers are seldom – if ever – banded about by audio gear manufacturers in their adverts. The only audio gear manufacturer that I know of that warns their potential customers of the dangers of using their products at very high decibel levels is Polk Audio. On the advert of their SRT System, Polk Audio clearly warned that this audio system is capable of extreme sound pressure levels. The said advert even states that SRT Systems are supplied with a sound pressure level meter to help you – their prized client – determine safe listening levels. In my opinion, this is like a cigarette manufacturer providing their loyal customers with a great healthcare package.
As an avid Rock concert patron and sometimes performer, it is probably the sound reinforcement / public-address system side of audio gear manufacturing that should be availing themselves of product liability insurance. Given that contemporary Rock concert sound reinforcement systems can easily deliver clean and continuous 120 to 130-dB sound pressure levels to a relatively large number of people is a recipe for a large-scale hearing loss – not to mention the health-related class action lawsuit.
Will audio gear manufacturers do a Winchester House-like descent into superstition in the face of an impending class action lawsuit? I hope not. After all, the 19th Century firearm magnate William Wirth Winchester managed to ply his wares long before the American society became the litigious entity that it is today. With the use of contemporary American Rock music as a torture device in Guantà namo Bay Prison – i.e. playing American Rock music to terror suspect detainees, I think audio gear manufacturers must now have product liability insurance or get one as soon as possible. Thanks to the malfeasant way that the Bush-Cheney consortium conducted America’s “War on Terror”.
By: Ringo Bones
For some years now, the tobacco industry had been experiencing it first hand after a series of class action lawsuits put forth by cigarette smokers now suffering from lung cancer and other related diseases. Suing them for failing to fully warn against the full extent of the dangers of tobacco use. Given the relative ”success” of these lawsuits from the standpoint of the plaintiffs, will similar class action lawsuits will soon be besetting audio gear manufacturers after legions of Generation X-ers figure out why they can’t hear anymore?
If you happen to sell, supply or deliver goods – even in the form of repair service – you may need coverage against claims of goods causing injury, death or damage. Product liability insurance covers you if any of these events happen to another business or person by the failure of your product or the product you are selling. From a legalese standpoint, product liability is the area of the law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and the rest who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. Usually, there are three major types of product liability claims: manufacturing defect, design defect, and the failure to warn – also known as marketing defect.
While the tobacco industry – more often than not – had always resorted to that legal gray area of knowing only the harmful effects - i.e. health risks - of their product only several centuries after they started selling tobacco products to their customers, the warning signs of hearing loss usually manifest itself in very obvious ways. As in pain - hence the threshold of pain part of our hearing. But is this self-evident truth be enough to protect hi-fi and public-address systems manufacturers against future class-action lawsuits pertaining to hearing loss?
Warning signs and legal disclaimers are seldom – if ever – banded about by audio gear manufacturers in their adverts. The only audio gear manufacturer that I know of that warns their potential customers of the dangers of using their products at very high decibel levels is Polk Audio. On the advert of their SRT System, Polk Audio clearly warned that this audio system is capable of extreme sound pressure levels. The said advert even states that SRT Systems are supplied with a sound pressure level meter to help you – their prized client – determine safe listening levels. In my opinion, this is like a cigarette manufacturer providing their loyal customers with a great healthcare package.
As an avid Rock concert patron and sometimes performer, it is probably the sound reinforcement / public-address system side of audio gear manufacturing that should be availing themselves of product liability insurance. Given that contemporary Rock concert sound reinforcement systems can easily deliver clean and continuous 120 to 130-dB sound pressure levels to a relatively large number of people is a recipe for a large-scale hearing loss – not to mention the health-related class action lawsuit.
Will audio gear manufacturers do a Winchester House-like descent into superstition in the face of an impending class action lawsuit? I hope not. After all, the 19th Century firearm magnate William Wirth Winchester managed to ply his wares long before the American society became the litigious entity that it is today. With the use of contemporary American Rock music as a torture device in Guantà namo Bay Prison – i.e. playing American Rock music to terror suspect detainees, I think audio gear manufacturers must now have product liability insurance or get one as soon as possible. Thanks to the malfeasant way that the Bush-Cheney consortium conducted America’s “War on Terror”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
