The question that's asked is "would XYZ claim be covered under the terms of our current policy". Usually the best answer I've been able to get is "probably so". The unique challenge in the case of an intentionally planned dangerous stunt is that most such policies are intended to cover "claims of negligence related accidental liability."
If you planned to do something you knew had a high likelihood of being dangerous, that's not an "accident." Many such policies have specific limitations, stipulations and requirements to remain in force. For example, purchasing a liability insurance rider to cover a large corporate party may have limitations like limiting the number of people, stipulations like all the bartenders must have training on not serving inebriated guests and requirements such as having hired paramedics present.
When you file a large claim on such an insurance policy, they will check that you were in full compliance with all the policy requirements before paying out. Source: I know an attorney who works in a law firm specializing in policy holders suing their own insurance company when they refuse a claim. I'm sure there are good insurance companies and bad but based on the stories I've heard you definitely want to make sure you're in compliance under any policy you're substantially relying on.
Ring Insurance company rep sees caller ID: "Oh no. What have they thought up THIS time?"
I suspect that it is the underwriters, who are responsible for assessing risks and determining what constraints and requirements must be met to claim insurance. Their work can be highly mathematical and, other times, they will just look at the underwriting guidelines and say "No, we won't let you test a homemade parachute on a living human because your team are not professional parachute manufacturers with valid indemnity insurance we can mitigate our risk against."
Production companies and financiers won’t show up if the insurance company won’t
Also there is the ease of having video evidence and so many witnesses that have different goals
1. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJtitKU0CAeg88RBY08TZ...
It's a clause that specifically excludes certain specific actions from coverage.
I'd encourage you to read your own insurance policies, they are fairly easy to understand..
I've always how that worked. Like, who is the employee at the insurance company who takes that call, and how do they decide what's just too risky, when there can't be much historical data on risk?