I've read old posts, I understand clowns of usa (or whatever they're called now) is the standard and I understand it's better to have than need...
I'm interested to hear from people who have *needed* the insurance, to find out if it actually came thru. Or maybe wiggled their way out of coverage?
Tell tell
I'm interested to hear from people who have *needed* the insurance, to find out if it actually came thru. Or maybe wiggled their way out of coverage?
Tell tell
-
Re: more about insurance
Thu, May 15, 2008 - 9:16 PMOkay, well, first, there are two companies, now
1) Clowns of the US / Performers of the US / Specialty Insurance
2) American Fire Artists.
I run an open fire spin jam here in Culver City. It's held at a public park and is completely legal, which is actually pretty rare. Being able to tell police to piss off is better than it sounds. But in order to do it, the people who run it are required to maintain a $2M liability insurance and put The City of Culver City as an additional insured. And naturally, they want a copy.
Also, we do a gig at Knotts berry farms in the strictest jurisdiction in So Cal. Each performer is required to have liability insurance and have knotts as an additional insured, and wanted photocopies as proof.
These are the only two gigs I've done where insurance was so restrictive. Typically, if a venue asks for insurance, they want at least one person to have it. Only very rarely will people say all performers have to have it. Even the movie I shot just asked if we were insured and didn't want us to pony up proof.
BUT, being able to say that we can provide ALL insured performers has opened a lot of doors and, I think, gotten us gigs that we may not have otherwise.
As you move from birthday parties to corporate events, you may find insurance to open more and more doors.
And for less than $200 a year (for either of them) what the heck's the problem? sheesh. -
-
Re: more about insurance
Fri, May 16, 2008 - 7:06 AMI'm living in canada...where the medical expenses aren't such a big deal. And because all these companies are based in the US, it would be really easy to find a reason not to cover (my experience with insurance companies for other things)
I'll call them today... :) -
-
Re: more about insurance
Fri, May 16, 2008 - 10:28 AMBut this isn't medical, it's liability. Mostly it's to keep people from suing you for damages if you burn down the place or traumatize their kid. Granted, Canada is a little less litigious, but the movie industry isn't, and a lot of shows are filmed up there now... -
-
Re: more about insurance
Fri, May 16, 2008 - 9:03 PMTedward, I spoke with the woman who runs American Fire Artists and she told me that the company they were going through fell through because they would only do it if she ran a company and each person insured was an employee under that company. She said hopefully next year it will be sorted out. -
-
Re: more about insurance
Wed, May 28, 2008 - 4:43 PMacctually it did come through and we started proividing coverage this month. it was a weird ride, but so far it has been good. -
-
Re: more about insurance
Wed, May 28, 2008 - 4:54 PMYup, my partner is insured by them. So we can do a side-by-side test of them this October....
-
Re: more about insurance
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 9:59 PMBut AFA coverage still does not apply in Canada, right? Not just the "if you are Canadian we can cover you if you have a US address" thing, but do you cover my shows that I perform in Canada (no matter where I am from, though I am from the States)? -
-
Re: more about insurance
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 10:10 PMHafta wait for Salyc on that one. Specialty is the one that requires a US address, but it covers you wherever you are (I think). Again, if you're outside the US a lot, probably best to check directly before buying.
I'm not sure but this might be the kind of thing that changes with new underwriters too. Specialty has gone through several in the last few years. -
-
Re: more about insurance
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 12:15 AMSpecialty covers performances in the US, Canada, and Puerto Rico. (Makes we wanna go to Puerto Rico! Well, that or the fact that we have barely gotten any real spring here in Toronto....)
I sent a message at the folks at AFA through their website weeks ago about Canadian coverage but never heard back. (I think I did see a post from her somewhere on this site a while back saying they'd cover Canadians with a US address, as Specialty also does.)
Realistically, though the AFA safety reqs were a tad stringent for my taste, even if they do cover Canadian performances (i.e. the 15' radius rule, the one safety for each performer rule, etc.). That I suppose might change with new underwriters, but it's still on their site.
Anyway, mostly just curious for reference's sake about the AFA coverage in Canada. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: more about insurance
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 1:58 AMYeah, I hear ya. We have a 6 person show we do every Oct, and I doubt we could reasonably fit 6 spotters around the stage. Since a lot of that stuff came from the NAFAA safety regs, I'm gonna bet they really mean that there must be at least 1 spotter per ACT, not performer. So if you're running a duet where you're watching each other's backs, then one would work, but our 6-performer show should at least have 2-3 (which we do). I can't even imagine needing a 1:1 ratio for Ocean of Fire where we had a stunning 2:1 ratio, probably the highest ever at the Burn. -
-
Re: more about insurance
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 10:15 AMMakes sense, it's just very poorly worded--a lot of it is. Still, if my claim is in danger of getting denied b/c I did not have a 1:1 ratio at my performance, I'm not signing on for that. It's so stringent as to make me feel uneasy about their underwriter wriggling out of paying out should there ever be a claim based things like this. -
-
-
Re: more about insurance
Wed, June 4, 2008 - 6:12 PMThat is not the intent at all. Please note that if you have any concerns or issues we can go over them prior to coverage.,
Please contact us directly at contact@americanfireartists.com and we can address your individual concerns.
Our intent is not to be overly strict. Our intent is to use the information and input from members and other professionals to eventually have a document that can work for everyione from backyard spinners to seasoned professionals. It is a fine line we walk. Who is the judge? It's not like this is something you get a PHD in. Sorry... not meant as rude or sarcastic...
Seriously. Our entire purpose is to create the best laid requirements that cover all levels.
There is a thread on spotters going now that we are following very closely...
Thanks.,
Salyc -
-
Re: more about insurance
Wed, June 4, 2008 - 10:14 PMI'm not judging for anyone but myself; I just don't feel comfortable paying out a premium yet given the current status of things.
I'm sure that once the kinks get worked out, I'll look at AFA as a more viable option for my coverage. That is not getting ruled out forever, just for now. And, I'm not doubting the best of intentions on *your* part; it's the bottom-line-driven underwriters I am skeptical of at the end of the day. Things like a safety req doc that's not got its kinks worked out could just be the out they'd surely be looking for *if* a claim was ever filed. (And, I know, a scenario arising requiring a claim is not at all likely, statistically, but still....)
No offense meant to you; it's a business thing.
I will contact you at contact@, though, thanks for reaching out. I do appreciate that. -
-
Re: more about insurance
Thu, June 5, 2008 - 1:27 AMYeah, when you're talking insurance you really need to separate the "helpful tips" section from the "thou shalt" stuff.
The real problem here is that a few years ago, a group called Clowns of America (very confusing with Clowns of the US around at the same time) was selling insurance to fire performers until a few people made claims. They were VERY slow to respond, and in the end, it turned out that their policy specifically did not cover fire performers. I'm not sure of the specifics but I think a class action fraud suit shut them down. Regardless, it was quite mess and burned a lot of performers to insurers, apparently to today.
So, yes, when you have "The following requirements must be adhered to by all performers and safety personal." pasted across the top, it does look very much like one of the first questions we'll here on a claim is: "how many spotters?" and if it isn't a 1:1, the claim will get denied.
What you might want to do is trim the "safety requirements" down to the bare minimum (ie. you must have a spotter during each performance) and then put the maxi rules in the "safety suggestions" page.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: more about insurance
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 8:04 AMyou must ahve a US address. but we will cover your performances anywhere inthe US Canada and the "us colonies" like virgin islands pureto rico...
I so spelled that wrong... ( sorry a bit sleep deprived...) -
-
Re: more about insurance
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 9:56 AMAha, thank you! Good to know. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: more about insurance
Wed, June 4, 2008 - 7:45 PMJust reread this post. More sleep today since there was no internet here all day.
I am sorry your e-mail got missed. Let me know idf there are any other questions.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-