Emma Hall gauges initial reaction to the innovative specifications in
Pliatzky 2
A high-risk process such as making commercials can’t happen unless, for
every star director and script, there’s an experienced insurance broker
and a sound insurance agreement.
Last week, after two years of investigations, an industry working party
chaired by David Lamb, a former client at Rowntree Macintosh, published
an updated handbook on commercials production procedures, known as
Pliatzky 2.
In his introduction, Lamb draws attention to the report’s ‘major
development’ - the new production and insurance briefing specification
(PIBS) which, for the first time, aims to spell out the division of
insurance responsibilities between the agency and the production company
and to ensure that insurance is discussed at the earliest stage of the
production process.
Cecilia Garnett, the chief executive of the Advertising Film and
Videotape Producers Association, sat on the working party alongside
members from her own association as well as representatives from the
Institute of Practitioners in Advertising and the Incorporated Society
of British Advertisers.
Garnett says: ‘Insurance disputes can be very complex. The new
guidelines, which have been put together in consultation with brokers,
are designed to avoid disasters and loopholes.’
Insurance has long been a potential stumbling block, with each party
making dangerous assumptions that the other has got things covered. A
typical case came up recently when an extra was injured and both the
agency and the production company denied it was their problem.
Karen Cunningham, the managing director of the Pink Film Company, says:
‘Insurance is always a grey area. Nearly everyone has had the
experience, after a burglary or an accident, that the one thing you are
claiming for is excluded by the small print. In commercials, the
inclusion of special effects and stunts always set you thinking about
insurance, but the real troubles usually come from the less obvious
dangers.’
This point is illustrated perfectly by an ongoing case involving weather
insurance, which is always taken out by the agency when relevant. On one
shoot, which took place in England over a few predictably drizzly
February days, the insurance company gave the production company a
weather gauge, to measure rainfall, as part of the insurance contract.
As predicted, the crew did not get four consecutive hours of dry
daylight weather, incurring the costs of an extra day’s shooting, for
which the production company put in a claim that fell comfortably within
the insurance contract.
What no-one had bargained for, however, was a faulty rain gauge. The
team’s on-site rainfall measures tallied perfectly with Meteorological
Office records, but the insurers refused to accept responsibility and
turned down the claim. The case still has not been resolved.
To prevent such disputes from happening, many producers will take the
time to build up mutual trust and a good working relationship with their
broker.
Stonehouse Conseillers, one of the advertising industry’s leading
insurance brokers, welcomes the new recommendations that give special
consideration to artists, props and negatives.
The company’s directors, Mark Good, Tony Wall and Matt Lawford, agree:
‘The new contract is a considerable improvement, principally because it
is more explicit and places far more emphasis on the need to discuss
insurance in detail during the pre-production process. This should lead
to better cover for the client, more informed budgeting and fewer
uninsured events.’
The new guidelines may favour the agency over the production company,
particularly in the area of props which, once they have arrived on the
set, are now deemed to be the sole responsibility of the production
company. As Good points out: ‘If a car suffers mechanical failure under
the control of the manufacturer’s own mechanics, it seems unfair to
expect the production company to face the responsibility. Separate
arrangements have to be made on the PIBS.’
Good notes: ‘It has been made clear that, in the event of a shooting
delay that falls within the area of the production company’s
responsibilities, it must pay not only for its own costs but also for
any extra artist and agency costs which result. This is an area which
many production companies have previously neglected to insure.’
Lamb stresses: ‘The key to ensuring effective cover is that there should
be a proper exchange of information between the agency and the
production company. It must be quite clear where insurance cover begins
and ends.’
Jane Fuller, the executive producer at Jane Fuller Associates, speaks
for many of her peers when she says that the insurance issue is still
murky, despite the best efforts of the new report. ‘Every producer in
town is wary of the possible dangers of insurance loopholes. The water
is now a little less cloudy, but I’ll still check with my broker every
time.’
