News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The strange business of hole-in-one insurance by mrandish on Tuesday May 03, 2022 @07:14PM (#31254810)
> how do they decide what's just too risky

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.

Re:The strange business of hole-in-one insurance by eru on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @02:02AM (#31257195)
And obviously, Mythbusters would have a special relationship with their insurance people.
Re:The strange business of hole-in-one insurance by bostik on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @07:53AM (#31259234)
I can imagine their insurer and production crew to have had a very intimate relationship.

Ring Insurance company rep sees caller ID: "Oh no. What have they thought up THIS time?"