Search
Close this search box.

Coverages that might apply to ‘Rust’ movie shooting

Bloomberg-Rust-380322938

Coverages that might apply to ‘Rust’ movie shooting

If the deceased cinematographer is considered an employee of the production company, then workers’ compensation coverage applies. However, it may not be that straightforward. Workers’ compensation pays for accidental injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment. So far, so good. However, many states have exceptions when willful misconduct or safety rule violations result in an accident.

In late October 2021, tragedy struck on the set of the movie “Rust” when live rounds were mistakenly fired, killing one person and injuring another. With a variety of coverage possibly at play in this devastating event, here is a comprehensive look at the way different insurance policies could be involved. (Note that we have no inside information regarding this tragedy; our list below is based on our knowledge of the many policies that could be involved in similar tragedies.)

First, some background on the incident: Sixteen crew and cast members were working in a church at the Bonanza Creek Ranch, a popular filming location in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Joel Souza, the director, huddled behind cinematographer Halyna Hutchins lining up possible camera shots. Armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed prepared three guns serving as props and placed them on a cart for use by the actors.

Dave Halls, the assistant director, allegedly picked up one of the guns and declared the gun to be “cold,” meaning it did not have any live ammunition including blanks within. Halls handed the gun to actor Alec Baldwin, who began rehearsing a scene that involved pulling the revolver from its holster and aiming it toward the camera. During the second rehearsal of the scene, the gun went off, with a live round striking first Hutchins and then Souza.

Hutchins was hit in the chest and pronounced dead after being taken by helicopter to a hospital in Albuquerque, while Souza was treated at a hospital and released the same day. Immediately an investigation began as to who was responsible for live rounds being on the set, who loaded the gun, why wasn’t the gun checked by Halls and who ultimately bears responsibility for the death of an up-and-coming cinematographer.

Workers’ compensation

Workers’ compensation is the first place to look. If the deceased cinematographer is considered an employee of the production company, then workers’ compensation coverage applies. However, it may not be that straightforward. Workers’ compensation pays for accidental injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment. So far, so good. However, many states have exceptions when willful misconduct or safety rule violations result in an accident. Depending on the results of the investigation and the safety requirements for the movie set, this could come into play.

Multiple states may be involved, however. The accident occurred in New Mexico, but the state Hutchins and her family live in could come into play as well. Her heirs could file a claim in the location most beneficial to them.

Workers’ compensation pays for funeral expenses for the death of an employee, income replacement for a given time period and benefits to her minor children until they reach a certain age.

The “Business Insider” published a copy of the certificate of liability insurance for the movie productions, reportedly obtained via public records request from the Santa Fe Film Studio. The certificate was issued to Rust Movie Productions, LLC identifying the liability and workers’ compensation insurer as Chubb National Insurance.

The workers’ compensation insurance was shown at the statutory limits of $1 million for each accident, each employee and a disease policy limit of $1 million. The description of operations included the following: Media Services Processing Inc & Media Payroll LLC , its parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, officers, directors, agents, and employees are named as additional insured.

New Mexico rules dictate that workers’ compensation is the sole remedy for workers’ injuries, with the employee assuming all risks in their line of duty. With no defenses or negligence permitted regardless of whether the injury or death was sustained by the employer’s negligence or due in any part to a lack of ordinary care of a fellow servant.

Regardless, any and all causes of action, suits, and common law rights and remedies are unavailable outside the state’s workers’ compensation act. As such, the employee death benefit (not including dependents) is a maximum of $7,500 plus earned compensation. Other than a widow/widower or children, no dependent may be paid total benefits in excess of $7,500; exclusive of funeral expenses and the expenses provided for medical and hospital services for the deceased paid by the employer.

If the child is living with the father, the statute states that he is entitled to 45%  of the weekly compensation benefits as provided in the statute and 55% divided equally to the child. If the spouse remarries, two years’ compensation shall be paid in a lump sum.

General liability, umbrella

The commercial general liability (CGL) policy covers bodily injury or property damage to third parties, not the insured. Since employees of the insured are covered as insureds, the general liability policy would not be available to the employees of Rust Production LLC. The limited medical payments coverage under the CGL would be available to cover the medical expenses at the time of the shooting. The medical payments coverage applies regardless of fault.

Even though the certificate of liability insurance provides for an umbrella limit of $5 million for the Rust Movie Productions LLC,  the standard umbrella policy does not provide excess limits of workers’ compensation beyond the state’s statutory limits.

Depending upon the laws of the state where suit may be brought, that state may permit an action against the insured’s general liability policy for negligence. The general liability policy provides for an insured’s defense in any action made against the insured for bodily injury . However, the general liability policy includes employees of the movie production as insureds; therefore, an insured may not bring suit against itself for coverage.

Life insurance

The most obvious coverage is life insurance. Hutchins may have had a personal life insurance policy, payable to her husband or a trust.

Generally, carriers require the original policy and an official death certificate in order to pay the beneficiary. Once received, however, payment is generally swift. In this case, the cause of death is not excluded, so payment would be made once the death certificate is received. Death certificates take a week or two to be issued to the representative of the estate or the family.

Related:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts

Insurance-technology

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More
Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote