E and O insurance Required by Distributors?

[Jackson Miller]

My Producing teacher today said that Distributing companies would not even consider taking on a film unless it had Errors and Omissions Insurance. Is this true for all of the companies or just the major ones? I find it hard to believe that all or even half of the low budget feature films out there had this insurance because of how hard it is to get according to my teacher. You have to show all of your paperwork for absolutely everything. And most indie films probably don't have documented permission from the photographer who took a picture in the background of a shot for 2 seconds in your movie.

So what is the deal? Would you need this for a 50,000 feature? 100k? 500k? 1 million?

I am shooting a feature this summer with a budget of around 50 - 100 k. Do I pay for this insurance to protect myself? Can I?

Do I need other types of insurance as well for my kind of budget? We went over it in class and there are tons of types that are usually packaged together. I actually like the idea of having my equipment insured and not being liable for possible injuries on set, but will the companies even insure me with this low of a budget? I heard 300k is the minimum amount they will insure. So what do you guys do?

 

[jls4]

Yes you would need E&O but you don't need it until you find a dsitributor. some may pay it for you, others will force you to take it out of the money they give you. Others will even force you to pay it before the deal is finalized. E&O can be easily $10 to $15K or more.

what I've done (because my budgets are so small) is wing it. Just shoot the movie and worry about the insurance later. This is not the best way - especially if someone gets seriously hurt (behind a basic scrape or burn - hospital / ambulance hurt).

 

[Steve House]

Yes you would need E&O but you don't need it until you find a dsitributor. some may pay it for you, others will force you to take it out of the money they give you. Others will even force you to pay it before the deal is finalized. E&O can be easily $10 to $15K or more.

what I've done (because my budgets are so small) is wing it. Just shoot the movie and worry about the insurance later. This is not the best way - especially if someone gets seriously hurt (behind a basic scrape or burn - hospital / ambulance hurt).

E & O doesn't cover you for liability for injury on the set, damage to equipment, damage to a location property, etc. It's just what it says, "Errors And Omissions", such as if you mess up and something in the movie is held to be defamatory to someone, that sort of thing.

 

[jls4]

E & O doesn't cover you for liability for injury on the set, damage to equipment, damage to a location property, etc. It's just what it says, "Errors And Omissions", such as if you mess up and something in the movie is held to be defamatory to someone, that sort of thing.

I know. there are several types of insurance. sorry if I was being confusing. But you need E&O for distribution, you Don't need Liability for Shooting OR distribution. Most indies I know shoot without Liability, but no matter what you have to have (from what I've read and experienced) E&O for distribution.

 

[Chris Santucci]

My Producing teacher today said that Distributing companies would not even consider taking on a film unless it had Errors and Omissions Insurance. Is this true for all of the companies or just the major ones?

Did he also tell you that you have to have a completion bond? (Whatever...)

As far as I know, you can buy E&O later and yeah a distributor may require that you have this coverage or they may provide it. Either way, if you're operating with a small budget, just make sure you're anal about clearances and careful with characters names in the script.

I find it hard to believe that all or even half of the low budget feature films out there had this insurance because of how hard it is to get according to my teacher. You have to show all of your paperwork for absolutely everything. And most indie films probably don't have documented permission from the photographer who took a picture in the background of a shot for 2 seconds in your movie.

If you get offered anything like a "real" distribution deal, my guess is that you have to have this insurance. I wasn't aware that it was "hard to get" but then I never bought E&O coverage before. He's probably referring to the demand for documentation on clearances, etc., that an insurer might require before providing the coverage and how Indie filmmakers just don't keep up with that stuff. Just make sure you cover your ass on everything related to "media risks against the devastating impact of lawsuits for libel, slander, invasion of privacy, infringement of copyright and other specified torts."

Get talent releases for anyone whose face is recognizable in the footage shot for the film. Get clearance for logos, art, music, radio or TV broadcasts, etc. Keep on it.

Do I need other types of insurance as well for my kind of budget? We went over it in class and there are tons of types that are usually packaged together. I actually like the idea of having my equipment insured and not being liable for possible injuries on set, but will the companies even insure me with this low of a budget? I heard 300k is the minimum amount they will insure. So what do you guys do?

Always, always, always, get liability and coverage for gear. Technically YOU are supposed to have workers comp coverage for anyone you hire whether they are getting paid or not. If someone gets hurt on your set who is there to help you get the film made, you could end up in big trouble. You can get a temporary policy to just cover the window of time you'll be in production.

Most cities require you have a million bucks in liability before they will let you shoot on city property. Business owners whose property you might want to use as a location also generally require you have liability coverage.

.

 

[Steve House]

I know. there are several types of insurance. sorry if I was being confusing. But you need E&O for distribution, you Don't need Liability for Shooting OR distribution. Most indies I know shoot without Liability, but no matter what you have to have (from what I've read and experienced) E&O for distribution.

You certainly don't need general liability for distraibution. You might need it for shooting as it can be a prerequisite for obtaining access to some locations or for required permits. IMHO, given the hazards to people and equipment on a set, one is incredibly foolish if you choose to not bite the bullet and obtain it,whether it's formally required or not. Otherwise one slip could wipe out your entire career (not to mention the ethical issue of abandoning someone you've injured to their fate).

 

[jls4]

You certainly don't need general liability for distraibution. You might need it for shooting as it can be a prerequisite for obtaining access to some locations or for required permits. IMHO, given the hazards to people and equipment on a set, one is incredibly foolish if you choose to not bite the bullet and obtain it,whether it's formally required or not. Otherwise one slip could wipe out your entire career (not to mention the ethical issue of abandoning someone you've injured to their fate).

True, but when you are talking to people whose whole budgets are less than $15K like in my first movie. You take the chance. Sooner or later you're going to take chances. I agree that you should do your best to avoid possible problems, but sometimes you can't help it.

for over 5 years I've been doing photography, videography, and features and in that time only twice were we asked to provide proof of insurance in order to be in a location (even though we had it after our 2nd year). One time was for a wedding photography shoot, the other was for a model photography shoot. We ended up skipping the location for the model. Anyway, everyone else - movie locations - we just talked to the owner and did our best to be careful. Unfortunately we almost always did somekind of small damage, but most people understood and didn't charge us anything.

In my first major feature, two of my actors had to fall down face first on a hard floor. After 4 falls one actress was bruised pretty bad that she had to put ice on her hand for a day. But again, she looked at it more as the price of doing movies.

In the "true shoebox" indie world, I've noticed people are a little nicer and tend to forgive small damages. When people see lots of money they want a piece of it. When they think you don't have anything - they work with you in hopes you'll have it later. It's really funny like that. People who make money tend to be more money hungry than those who make little to none.

When I was laid off from my job (and went to work for myself) I went to the dentist to get my teeth cleaned. The receptionist asked me for my insurance and I told her I didn't have it anymore, but I was willing to pay out of pocket. (Most of my visits were about $200 or under) As soon as she heard that, she said "Hold on a minute" and when I saw how much I owed it was almost half of the "insurance rates". I've seen this happen on more than one occasion with people. Because you have "insurance" people exploit it to make more money, but when you don't have it - they are kinder to you because they want your business.

Long explanation, but I wanted to show that people all over do this practice. I wouldn't encouage anyone to shoot without liability insurance, BUT at the same time you either wait for more money or go shoot your movie. I choose to go shoot my movie and hope for the best.

 

[Steve House]

...
Long explanation, but I wanted to show that people all over do this practice. I wouldn't encouage anyone to shoot without liability insurance, BUT at the same time you either wait for more money or go shoot your movie. I choose to go shoot my movie and hope for the best.

And your aforementioned actress knoccks over a light and is burned in the face to the point that her acting career is finished and has racked up a quarter of a miilion dollars in medical bills. You're just going to say the her "Sorry, that's the price of making movies. Been good to know you and thanks for helping in my movie!"? Roll the dice with your own life all you want but rolling it with someone else's is irresponsible and IMHO should be unthinkable

 

[jls4]

And your aforementioned actress knoccks over a light and is burned in the face to the point that her acting career is finished and has racked up a quarter of a miilion dollars in medical bills. You're just going to say the her "Sorry, that's the price of making movies. Been good to know you and thanks for helping in my movie!"? Roll the dice with your own life all you want but rolling it with someone else's is irresponsible.

Fine Steve. I don't want to argue this point. I already said if you have the money - get the insurance. I started my move into liability insurance after 2 years.

Yes bad things CAN happen, but for me I played the odds and I'm glad I did. I didn't have the money. So that's how it was. I'm not telling others to do it that way, because if they have small budgets they are already doing it. But if someone has a larger budget, yes they'd be more than stupid not to get some good insurance.

Hope someone can get something from this thread. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Steve House]

Fine Steve. I don't want to argue this point. I already said if you have the money - get the insurance. I started my move into liability insurance after 2 years.

Yes bad things CAN happen, but for me I played the odds and I'm glad I did. I didn't have the money. So that's how it was. I'm not telling others to do it that way, because if they have small budgets they are already doing it. But if someone has a larger budget, yes they'd be more than stupid not to get some good insurance.

Hope someone can get something from this thread. Sorry if I offended anyone.

IMO, a certain level of responsibility needs to be the price of admission, even if no one is holding a gun to your head to force you to do the right thing. If you can't afford car insurance, you have no right to drive a car. If you can't afford proper insurance, you can't make the movie either. End of story - acting responsibility towards others trumps personal ambitions. If you can't afford a camera, you can't make a movie. Affording proper insurance covage to shield others from being harmed by your actions is no different. You can't afford it, you can't do it, and nothing can justify ignoring that responsibility.

 

[Jackson Miller]

IMO, a certain level of responsibility needs to be the price of admission, even if no one is holding a gun to your head to force you to do the right thing. If you can't afford car insurance, you have no right to drive a car. If you can't afford proper insurance, you can't make the movie either. End of story - acting responsibility towards others trumps personal ambitions. If you can't afford a camera, you can't make a movie. Affording proper insurance covage to shield others from being harmed by your actions is no different. You can't afford it, you can't do it, and nothing can justify ignoring that responsibility.

So no more no budget indies huh? What about if it is just friends who are the crew and actors? Well I suppose that is the same thing. How about short films and student films? The kind that make up 90% of the movies in most short film festivals? No more of those either I suppose huh? Can I go outside and film my friend doing backflips? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Steve House]

So no more no budget indies huh? What about if it is just friends who are the crew and actors? Well I suppose that is the same thing. How about short films and student films? The kind that make up 90% of the movies in most short film festivals? No more of those either I suppose huh? Can I go outside and film my friend doing backflips? Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at activities you benefit from that places other people in danger without doing what is necessary to protect them. You have no justifcation for ever driving a car without liability insurance, no matter what. The same applies to anything else where your actions create a situation that has potential for harm to someone else. You can't guarantee a lightstand won't fall over but you can insure that if it does, the harm it causes gets fixed.

 

[onedelorean]

My Producing teacher today said that Distributing companies would not even consider taking on a film unless it had Errors and Omissions Insurance. Is this true for all of the companies or just the major ones? I find it hard to believe that all or even half of the low budget feature films out there had this insurance because of how hard it is to get according to my teacher. You have to show all of your paperwork for absolutely everything. And most indie films probably don't have documented permission from the photographer who took a picture in the background of a shot for 2 seconds in your movie.

So what is the deal? Would you need this for a 50,000 feature? 100k? 500k? 1 million?

I am shooting a feature this summer with a budget of around 50 - 100 k. Do I pay for this insurance to protect myself? Can I?

Do I need other types of insurance as well for my kind of budget? We went over it in class and there are tons of types that are usually packaged together. I actually like the idea of having my equipment insured and not being liable for possible injuries on set, but will the companies even insure me with this low of a budget? I heard 300k is the minimum amount they will insure. So what do you guys do?

You're teacher is absolutely correct. In most cases distributors won't take your film unless you fulfill a list of requirements. Generally, E&O insurance is one of them. But there is a good reason for this. If someone is unhappy about your film and tries to sue you or teh distributor, the insurance will cover any losses. If you don't currently have a film up for distribution I wouldn't worry yourself with this. but if you do I encourage you to take a look at a couple insurance websites such as these:

http://www.FilmEmporium.com
http://www.errorsomissionsbroker.com/

 

[ggrantly]

FWIW, a very basic 1mil general liability policy for a photographer - one man band videographer can be had for around $600/yr with a $1000 deductable. I my case, I roll my auto and equipment coverage onto the same policy. $600 is less than the cost of a good mic! Morality and being cheap issues aside, you would be crazy not to have this most basic of protections. One small lawsuit lost could ruin you for a very long time. Careful is great, but things happen, and this risk isn't limited to just your crew; think attractive nuisance issues, auto wrecks, etc. This type of coverage however does not cover people in your employ. Your talent for example, need to be covered by workers comp. I just posted something about this in this in another thread about having a payroll and covering your crew:

"You may want to CAREFULLY avoid having a payroll by employing people who have their own business licenses, like an independent sound person. For folks that would clearly be employees, I hire them via a temp service like Labor Ready who takes care of all the payroll and insurance. Technically they are working for the temp service, and you tell the temp service how much you are going to pay them etc. and you pay the temp service who pays the employee. This is perfectly legal, keeps your crew insured and legally employed, and lets you avoid having a payroll. This will cost you a few bucks per hour, but for me is well worth it to avoid the payroll hassle factor and all the burden that comes with it."

I owned one service business for 10 years which had a payroll for about 8 employees and I swore that off, NEVER AGAIN! I have used the job shop method mentioned in the quote above for the last 10 years when I need to insure folks and have a payroll and it works great. Employees are limited to worker comp remedies for job injuries except in cases of gross negligence. Your liability insurance should pickup any other issues.

Regardless of your view about the right or wrongs of it, when you organize a project and produce a video, the organizer is liable for most anything that happens and to not have insurance is silly. Even if the suit is frivolous, you still have to defend yourself which can be really expensive in itself, much less if you lose and must pay a judgement AND the attorny fees. Whoops, there goes the kids college fund AND your house. You are now living in tent.

Grant

 

[ggrantly]

So no more no budget indies huh? What about if it is just friends who are the crew and actors? Well I suppose that is the same thing. How about short films and student films? The kind that make up 90% of the movies in most short film festivals? No more of those either I suppose huh? Can I go outside and film my friend doing backflips? Where do you draw the line?

Your legal liability on something like this begins when it is a for profit venture, even if it fails to make money.

Grant

 

[Snapper123]

I guess I've got a big question:

Alrighty, so I'm a budget filmmaker. I have a few films lined up that I neither can spend more than $1,000 on because of my lifestyle (sorry, not all of us have had rich parents who bought us cars, film school, and cared for our health), nor do they need any more money spent on them because of the specific low-budget aesthetic. All of them will be using friends (all teenagers and young adults), and if anything, local actors who don't know if it's pissing or raining. It'll be films like Blair Witch, Primer, Julien Donkey-Boy, Meadowoods, ect ect, films that you can literally go in the woods and film a marketable masterpiece as long as you have a cast and art direction that helps the vision come true. There won't be people blowing up buildings or performing race-car stunts, it'll be a bunch of dedicated people goofing off with the freedom and simplicity that this genre of film can bring.

So do I really need to spend an arm and a leg on 14 different forms insurance? The reality is that my projects are about as complex as a band getting together and performing in a garage, but like some very talented musicians out there, some people have gotten extraordinarily famous by writing music in garages. The point is I want to film these things, have a good time filming them, and not worry about much beyond the filmmaking. No one in my films is going to care if they scrape their arm on a twig, it's all people who get hurt worse than that playing sports or skateboarding. But the reality is that artistically speaking, I do feel like I have an extreme eye for how to create pleasing worlds to record, and I feel like I'm also a very good writer, and the dream really is that if I accomplish the films in the way I want to, I truly want to try and submit this stuff to major film festivals and distributing companies. The reality is that if Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity are so famous, then I believe in myself artistically speaking.

The question is though again about insurance. While Blair Witch for example could have been made for $5, I'm not sure wether or not they paid for all these insurance scams. if they did, then it might be the #1 reason the film got instantly accepted by major distributers and festivals. If they didn't, something tells me that the major companies decided "Heck, these folks obviously didn't have a clue, let's just cover for them, the past is past, lets promote this thingy." When talent is on the line, do distributers and festivals really care? The big statement is that I don't honestly know if my projects will turn out good, if they turn out perfect, then I sure as heck want them promoted all they can be to the target audiences that really love the type of work I'll be doing, but if for some reason my projects fail, I don't want to have wasted $50,000 on insurence when I don't have $50 to pay for my own food right now. For me, filmmaking is a bit of "Either my talent is going to get me all the way there or nothing will." - I just wish I knew if that was possible in any type of way. I don't want the government hunting me down or even the most medium of distributing companies or festivals blacklisting me before I walk into the door.

 

[ggrantly]

Snapper,

You may decide to accept the risk, that is the prerogative of youth. You don't own a house, have kids (probably) or anything to be accountable to. You aren't really in business, it would seem. You have a hobby and do it with your friends. As my previous post mentioned, if you aren't paying people and there isn't a profit motive, then you have less issues. You probably still have some liability, but realistically are less likely to be sued. You need real legal advice on this one, as I was discussing folks that are doing work for hire, or spec projects with a profit motive where there isn't any doubt.

Grant

 

[Steve House]

What about your basic moral responsibility to fully protect those people who have come to work on your project in the event there is an accident that injures them? Your ambition to be a filmmaker doesn't give you the right to simply say "tough s**t - so sue me, I've got nothing to lose" if someone else is harmed in the course of your project. You need to insure that the people in your cast and crew and the owners of the property where you are shooting are fully protected from injury or other loss that occurs as a result of their being involved with your project. If you can't do that, IMHO you have no moral right to proceed with the project at all until such time as your budget can sustain those responsibilities, no matter how badly you want it. Your obligations to the people working with you, particularly if they're working gratis, for a token amount, or on deferred compenstation, outweighs any obligation to your own ambitions or your talent. Comeon guys, we can't live in a vacum and pretend our actions have no consequences and our moral responsibility for those consequences. It doesn't matter what's legal ... what matters is what's right.

 

[Kholi]

What about your basic moral responsibility to fully protect those people who have come to work on your project in the event there is an accident that injures them? Your ambition to be a filmmaker doesn't give you the right to simply say "tough s**t - so sue me, I've got nothing to lose" if someone else is harmed in the course of your project. You need to insure that the people in your cast and crew and the owners of the property where you are shooting are fully protected from injury or other loss that occurs as a result of their being involved with your project. If you can't do that, IMHO you have no moral right to proceed with the project at all until such time as your budget can sustain those responsibilities, no matter how badly you want it. Your obligations to the people working with you, particularly if they're working gratis, for a token amount, or on deferred compenstation, outweighs any obligation to your own ambitions or your talent. Comeon guys, we can't live in a vacum and pretend our actions have no consequences and our moral responsibility for those consequences. It doesn't matter what's legal ... what matters is what's right.

I respect that you believe strongly in this, no need to flog everyone with it. Some people will, some people won't, that's the end of the story. Let them take responsibility for whatever happens, it doesn't affect you.

 

[Steve House]

I respect that you believe strongly in this, no need to flog everyone with it. Some people will, some people won't, that's the end of the story. Let them take responsibility for whatever happens, it doesn't affect you.

I'm not flogging anyone with my opinion. The disccussion moved from the starter about E&O insurance more in the direction of liability insurance. If one has any sense of ethics, it's simply not acceptable to go about one's business without regard for the consequences of one's decisions. It's similar to insurance for one's car. People who can't afford auto liability insurance are ethically obligated to stay off the road and it's simply not acceptable to drive without it ... end of story. It's not simply an arbitrary regulation like not parking for more than an hour in a certain space, a regulation to be obeyed or disregarded as one sees fir. There is only one clear moral option if faced with the choice of not driving or driving without insurance - you either obtain insurance or you stay off the road. For a filmaker to not insure against injury to his crew is exactly the same moral choice. You either protect the people working for you or you don't make your films.