EMF/RF Insurance: Who Is Responsible?
EMF/RF Insurance is an important consideration when assessing the potential financial consequences of alleged RF/EMF exposure. A telecommunications company may carry substantial general liability, product liability, excess and other insurance, but that does not necessarily mean those policies provide coverage for liability arising from alleged health effects of RF/EMF exposure.
EMFSA | 27 September 2026
Telecommunications Infrastructure and Corporate Risk examines the broader corporate-risk framework. This article considers EMF/RF exclusions, litigation, corporate disclosures and retained/uninsured risk.
Defence Costs and Liability: Two Different Questions
If a telecom company faces a long-running RF health claim, there are two quite separate financial questions:
- What does it cost the company to defend the litigation?
- If the company loses, or settles, who ultimately bears the liability?
An EMF exclusion could potentially mean that the second risk is retained by the company, rather than transferred to its liability insurer. Depending on the policy wording, even defence costs may be affected.
The distinction between “insured litigation risk” and “retained/uninsured litigation risk”
One cannot assume that because an insurer excludes EMF bodily-injury liability, all costs associated with an RF lawsuit are uninsured. Other policies, coverages, retentions, contractual indemnities and defence provisions can change the picture. Actual policy wording shows that EMF-related liability may be specifically carved out of liability insurance.
Insurance Exclusions Can Limit Coverage
Existing policy exclusions may limit insurers’ exposure to EMF/RF-related liability.
Example from a South African Policy Wording
A South African insurance policy wording also demonstrates that electromagnetic-radiation risks can be expressly excluded from liability coverage. For example, the iTOO General Liability Insurance Policy Wording contains an “Electromagnetic Radiation” exclusion addressing liability arising from signal-transmitting lines and towers, including cellular towers, as well as devices including cellular phones and antennas.
Broad radiation exclusions can encompass non-ionising EMF
An insurance policy can exclude liability for alleged EMF-related injury even where the exclusion is framed as a “radioactive matter” or “radiation” exclusion. An example is the Hammond Power Solutions case. The Seventh Circuit held that, under Wisconsin law, an insurance exclusion covering exposure to “any form of radiation” encompassed the alleged EMF radiation from transformers. The court expressly said that the parties agreed that EMFs qualified as radiation for purposes of the case. It was an insurance-contract interpretation decision, not a scientific finding about health effects.
The case concerned electromagnetic fields associated with electrical transformers rather than RF communications, but it illustrates how broadly worded radiation exclusions can become relevant to non-ionising EMF claims.
The Hammond decision demonstrates that the application of a radiation exclusion can itself become the subject of coverage litigation. Hammond Power Solutions, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg No. 24-1642
HHS and the FCC are now seeking public input through separate proceedings concerning RF exposure
HHS is seeking evidence on potential health effects, including effects associated with exposure below current federal limits, cumulative exposure, existing standards, research gaps and possible improvements to assessment and regulation. The FCC’s proceeding addresses the RF-exposure issues arising from the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 remand.
Questions for the Insurance and Liability Analysis
- How do telecommunications companies, insurers and other risk-bearing arrangements currently allocate RF-related liability? What could change if the scientific or regulatory position changes?
- If commercial liability policies exclude or potentially exclude RF/EMF-related health liability, how are telecommunications companies managing that risk?
- What, if anything, can be learned from the industry’s public response to the HHS RFI and FCC proceeding about how companies currently assess, transfer or retain RF/EMF-related health risks?
Corporate Risk Allocation: Who Ultimately Bears the Cost?
What do companies disclose about their own insurance?
- Crown Castle’s 2025 Form 10-K states that if a connection between RF emissions and adverse health effects were established, its operations, costs or revenues could be materially and adversely affected. It also states: “We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.”
- Verizon’s current 2025 Form 10-K says that its wireless business is subject to lawsuits concerning alleged adverse health effects of wireless phones and RF transmitters. It says the company may incur significant expenses defending such lawsuits and may face significant damages or settlements. It also says changes in government agencies’ assessment of wireless-device risks could result in significant legal and regulatory liability and materially affect the company. Note that Verizon’s disclosure does not say that these liabilities are uninsured.
Manufacturer RF-Exposure Instructions
Smartphone manufacturers also provide users with specific RF-exposure instructions, including separation distances for body-worn use.
Google — current Pixel 10 regulatory guide
Google’s official safety and regulatory guide states that body-worn operation requires 1.0 cm (10 mm) separation for Pixel 10, Pixel 10 Pro and Pixel 10 Pro XL models in U.S. 1.6 W/kg SAR jurisdictions. It also states that body-worn accessories should not contain metallic components.
Samsung — official RF/SAR information
Samsung’s official information states that SAR certification establishes a minimum recommended distance from a person’s body for operation of RF-emitting devices, and specifies 15 mm for phones.
These manufacturer instructions are relevant to the broader liability question because they document specific conditions and separation distances associated with RF-emitting products, although they do not by themselves establish that ordinary use causes harm or give rise to liability.
RF-Related Litigation Can Create Long-Term Financial Exposure
The more-than-two-decade Murray v. Motorola litigation illustrates how RF-related claims can generate prolonged litigation, expert proceedings, discovery and appeals. In a July 2025 decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants following the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ expert testimony under Rule 702. Although Murray is not an insurance-coverage dispute, its lengthy history shows how RF-related claims can create potentially significant long-term litigation costs and financial exposure.
What Could Change if the Regulatory Position Changes?
- At least one wireless-infrastructure company publicly discloses that it does not maintain significant insurance with respect to potential RF-related health risks.
- A change in the regulatory or scientific environment could create additional compliance, operational or financial exposure.
- RF-related public concerns can have consequences beyond litigation, including potential effects on deployment and market acceptance.
An RFI could potentially become relevant to insurance even if existing policies contain exclusions.
For example, scientific or regulatory developments could lead to:
- new insurance products;
- altered underwriting;
- changes in exclusions;
- disputes over existing wording;
- changes in corporate insurance purchasing;
- changes in captive/self-insurance arrangements; or
- increased attention to potential residual exposures.
We don’t know yet what the endpoint will be:
- an HHS advisory;
- new warnings;
- Wi-Fi restrictions in schools;
- recommendations to parents;
- stricter consumer-electronics labelling.
These are illustrative possibilities, not predictions or established endpoints. The outcome of the HHS review is not yet known.
The FCC and RF Exposure Limits: From 2013 to 2026
2013–2019: The FCC’s Review of RF Exposure Limits
The history is significant. The FCC opened a science-based inquiry into the adequacy of its RF exposure limits in 2013 and stated that it would work closely with federal agencies with relevant health expertise. In 2019, the FCC concluded that the record did not provide an adequate basis for changing the limits and terminated the inquiry.
2021: The D.C. Circuit Remand
In 2021, however, the D.C. Circuit remanded the FCC’s decision. The court found that the FCC had failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its RF exposure limits were adequately protective against harmful effects of RF exposure unrelated to cancer. This failure undermined the FCC’s conclusions concerning the adequacy of its testing procedures, particularly as they related to children. It also affected the agency’s conclusions concerning long-term exposure, RF pulsation or modulation, and technological developments since 1996. In addition, the court found that the FCC had failed to respond adequately to comments concerning environmental harm from RF radiation.
The court’s decision did not determine that RF exposure causes these effects, nor did it conclude that the FCC’s exposure limits were scientifically unsafe. Rather, it held that the FCC had not adequately explained its conclusions in response to the evidence and comments before it. The court also upheld the FCC’s explanation concerning cancer. The remand therefore focused on the agency’s treatment of potential harmful effects unrelated to cancer.
2026: The FCC Reopens the Remand Issues
On 17 September 2026, the FCC issued a new Public Notice seeking comment on the RF exposure issues subject to the D.C. Circuit’s remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC. The proceeding concerns the issues that remained unresolved following the court’s 2021 decision.
The HHS RFI and the FCC proceeding are therefore related but distinct. HHS is seeking information on scientific evidence, exposure, health effects, research gaps and possible recommendations, while the FCC proceeding addresses the RF-exposure issues arising from its own regulatory proceeding and the D.C. Circuit’s remand.
What Does the HHS RFI Change?
HHS can conduct health research, issue public-health information and make recommendations within its statutory authority. The FCC’s regulatory authority over RF exposure limits is a separate question.
The HHS RFI does not change federal RF exposure limits or impose new requirements on the telecommunications industry. It does, however, establish an official process for examining the scientific evidence, real-world exposure, existing standards, research gaps and potential health effects, including exposures below current federal limits. HHS states that the information received may inform future research, funding solicitations or policies. For a broader examination of the HHS RFI, the current U.S. process and France’s parallel call for new RF research, see Electromagnetic Fields and Radiofrequency Radiation: U.S. HHS Seeks Public Input; France Calls for New Research.
Future Litigation: Could the Evidence Base Change?
The HHS RFI could become relevant to future litigation if it leads to new research, additional evidence or changes in the regulatory or scientific assessment of RF exposure. HHS is specifically seeking information on potential health effects, including effects associated with exposure below current federal limits, as well as research gaps and priorities for future federal research.
Generating New Evidence
If the RFI contributes to new federally supported research or identifies important research gaps that are subsequently addressed, the resulting evidence could become relevant to future litigation. Whether particular studies would be admissible or persuasive would depend on the evidence itself and the applicable evidentiary rules.
Regulatory Changes Could Affect Future Preemption Arguments
Federal preemption has also been an important issue in RF-related litigation. Courts have, in some circumstances, held that federal RF regulations preempt state-law claims concerning devices that comply with FCC exposure requirements. The scope and basis of preemption, however, depend on the particular claims and applicable law.
If future federal action were to materially alter the applicable RF exposure standards or the regulatory framework underlying those decisions, parties in later litigation could potentially argue about what effect those changes have on existing preemption principles. That would be a legal question for the courts; a change in federal health policy would not automatically eliminate preemption defenses.
Industry Response Is Still Developing
As of 27 September 2026, we have not identified detailed public responses from major telecommunications or technology companies specifically addressing the HHS RFI. At the same time, the FCC’s September 2026 notice reflects the continuing importance of 5G, 6G and spectrum development within U.S. communications policy. HHS has invited industry stakeholders to provide evidence on exposure standards, wireless infrastructure, antenna density and small-cell deployment. The industry’s formal submissions to the RFI may therefore provide important insight into how the sector assesses the potential regulatory and liability implications of the review.
Related EMFSA articles:
Legal Disclaimer:
This article is provided for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, insurance, financial or professional advice. Insurance coverage depends on the wording, terms, conditions, exclusions and circumstances of the individual policy, as well as applicable law. References to court cases, insurance policies and corporate disclosures are provided for informational purposes and should not be taken as conclusions about the coverage or liability of any particular company or insurer.
AI Disclosure:
AI tools helped prepare this article through language editing, formatting, editorial assistance and research-support tasks. The author reviewed the sources and factual claims, reviewed and approved the final article, and remains responsible for its accuracy, interpretation and presentation.