Cedric Stephens | Amid pandemic risk, voters back the old team

ADVISORY COLUMN: RISKS & INSURANCE

COVID-19 and #JaVotes2020 were two of the most popular issues discussed in last Thursday’s Gleaner.

The first relates to the pandemic. It is still wreaking havoc here and around the globe. At the time of writing, it had caused 25.8 million infections and 858,629 deaths.

The hashtag #JaVotes2020 is connected to Jamaica’s September 3, 2020, general election. These topics are linked. Some political observers were predicting that the pandemic was likely to affect voter turnout.

One side said the management of the risks associated with the pandemic was on the ballot and projected that it would win up to 40 seats. The other calculated that it would win 47 seats. By the time this is published, we will have known which of these forecasts was correct.

Did the political organisations (aka parties), election infrastructure, and other entities and individuals connected with the conduct of the 2020 general election manage the many risks associated with their campaigns and the polls during COVID-19 in a responsible and effective manner? Will the results of the election be interpreted as a reflection on how the strategies and policies that were enacted due to COVID-19 are being managed?

These are important questions if overseas and local reports about the upsurge in the number of cases before September 3 are true. Some persons were suggesting that the election should have been postponed.

"Extreme" measures were taken by the Trump 2020 election campaign to protect itself during an indoor rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States, on June 20, short of cancelling the event. Attendees were required to sign waivers to the effect that the campaign could not be held legally responsible if they contracted COVID-19 at the rally, where the wearing of masks and social distancing were not practised.

Notably, 2012 US presidential candidate Herman Cain, 74, was photographed attending the rally sitting closely with other persons without a mask. He died from COVID-19 nine days later but, surprisingly, is still making statements on social media from the grave. (His Twitter account is now said to be operated by his relatives).

Locally, public-health protocols and orders issued under the Disaster Risk Management Act because of the pandemic banned traditional campaign events. This may have led to a reduction in the constituency walkabouts with scores of supporters.

From my observations in Kingston, St Andrew, and a little village near the border of St James and Hanover, what appeared to be privately owned vehicles with political party branding and ‘loud’ speakers were broadcasting messages and/or playing songs written for the election, festooned with flags displaying party colours and candidates’ photos. These displays did not reflect changes from past election campaigns.

My observations inevitably led me to pose the following questions in the aftermath of Thursday’s election.

Were the private individuals and companies that made their vehicles available for use by political campaigns aware that they were assuming risks when those vehicles were being used in connection with political events?

Did the owners inform their insurers of their plans and obtain their consent for the vehicles to be used in this manner?

Did the political organisations seek legal and/or insurance advice from licensed professionals prior to borrowing supporters’ vehicles to use in connection with political activities or in the hiring of vehicles from contractors?

Were persons injured when the vehicles were being used in connection with the election?

Did the political parties agree to assume legal responsibility when the vehicles were being used in connection with election?

Private and commercial vehicle insurance contracts offer limited protection. Claims disputes often arise because one party’s assumption about the scope of the protection is different from the other. This difference in understanding is not usually discovered until there is a claim.

A standard motor policy, for example, provides the policyholder, or someone authorised by the policyholder who is the holder of a driver’s licence that is appropriate for the particular vehicle, to drive the vehicle for "social, domestic, pleasure or business purposes".

An insurer faced with the prospect of a multimillion-dollar claim from a third party when the vehicle was being used in connection with political campaigning would almost certainly argue that such a claim would not be payable.

One overseas expert agrees with this opinion. It’s a 75-year-old Washington-based firm that specialises in selling insurance products to political entities. One offering is “hired and non-owned auto liability insurance to cover claims against the campaign arising out of the use of employees' personal vehicles”. This implies that when campaign employees’ personal vehicles are used for conducting political activities, they are not covered by those policies.

On Thursday night at about 9.15 p.m., it was clear that the Jamaica Labour Party had won the election by a landslide. One interpretation of the result is that the majority of the persons who voted had, consciously or subconsciously, decided not to change leadership responsibility for those who were managing the many crises associated with the COVID-19 pandemic to a new set of political leaders.

Cedric E. Stephens provides independent information and advice about the management of risks and insurance. For free information or counsel, write to: aegis@flowja.com