I was told by the City I wish to get permits and film in, that I need general liability and workers comp insurance.

General Liability of 1 million dollars costs us about $600.

Worker's comp for (I think up to 15 people) costs about $1600.

Does anyone know of any good insurance places, or ways to get out of worker's comp?
(everyone is working for free)

Advice would be grand.

You may be able to find a production company that has insurance that would be interested in being a co-producer on the project and put you under their umbrella. I think that's the second most common way for shorts to deal with this issue. The most common way is to simply not get permits.

If you were paying people, you could hire a payroll service like NPI in Burbank and they would include Worker's Comp as part of their package. I don't know if they do payroll for shorts but depending how long a shoot you have planned, it might be the cheapest way to go.

Here's their link just in case you don't find another way:
NPI Production Services, Inc. (http://www.npiproductionservices.com/)

going the 'official' way on short films is spending money that's not going to end up on screen.

going the 'official' way on short films is spending money that's not going to end up on screen.

NOT going the "official" way is a great way to get sued if something goes wrong. People in North America and specifically the US are very litigious or "lawsuit happy"... What MAY work in one part of the world certainly may not in another. And yes, I have been to India... on a documentary with both "official" and "non-official" segments.

People in North America and specifically the US are very litigious or "lawsuit happy"... I resent that accusation and you can expect papers from my lawyer to that effect. See you in court.

Adam: AGAIN?!?!?!? <wink>

Hey Silas-

I'm working on a feature right now, and I've found the most inexpensive insurance to be through "Fractured Atlas." They are a non-profit of of NYC, they are not an insurance broker per se, but they work with insurance companies to find you a good deal on insurance. You do have to be a member to use this service, which costs $95 a year. But there quotes to me have been lower than anyone else- $425 for general liability, $495 for equipment. Because you are only using volunteer labor you should be able to get a "volunteer accident insurance policy" through them for about $175.

I should also say that I have found them to be very easy to communicate with, and really on top of things when it comes to answering questions and addressing concerns.

Hope this helps.

NOT going the "official" way is a great way to get sued if something goes wrong. People in North America and specifically the US are very litigious or "lawsuit happy"... What MAY work in one part of the world certainly may not in another. And yes, I have been to India... on a documentary with both "official" and "non-official" segments.

It's a short film. The chances of it being a 'commercial hit' are almost zero.

Sareesh: my concerns were MUCH more on the worker's compensation side of things and I would argue that on an indie, accidents or incidents are FAR more likely to happen than on a major production due to the fact that there are unlikely to be set safety people on set. And "Liability" also covers damage to other people's property or person, such as a passerby tripping over a power cable and breaking their arm.

Again, this sort of thing in North America leads to lawsuits that bankrupt people.

i agree Shaun...
I guess each production is different and each producer needs to evaluate his/her situation correctly before proceeding...

The thought process that many take with short films or similar projects is that it costs too much to properly cover the production for such a limited amount of time (whereas a feature is longer, has more opportunity for failure and the costs can be amortized over a higher budgeted shoot). The resulting risk, however, is exactly the same. It's basically going about things with the giddy hope that nothing will go wrong, not wanting to consider what the consequences could possibly be.

Having seen a few things go badly especially on the equipment side of things, it's not pretty when there is no deal in place. I brought a friend's camera to a shoot a couple of years ago and without going into details, it got run over. There was no insurance and the resulting strained discussions ended up damaging several friendships as it got ugly.

Thankfully I haven't yet seen bad accidents happen to people on non-insured sets, but of course it can happen at any time.

Skirting the law is one thing, but when it's simply "optional" to have insurance, it can be hard to justify as a line item. The question you need to ask yourself is: when you ask your pals to help you out on your latest epic, and they bring their gear along, are you prepared to cover damages out of your own pocket if things get screwed up? After all, that's the right thing to do. What if they get hurt in any way? Even a basic emergency room visit for an person without health insurance costs a thousand to walk in the door--gonna make them pay for it? Even if you had everyone sign releases, would you feel OK about turning your back on them, people who donated their time for your vision?

Tough questions, but remember that any given day can turn bad very quickly.

I would argue that on an indie, accidents or incidents are FAR more likely to happen than on a major production due to the fact that there are unlikely to be set safety people on set.

The resulting risk, however, is exactly the same. It's basically going about things with the giddy hope that nothing will go wrong, not wanting to consider what the consequences could possibly be.

I'm not sure if Charles was addressing my above statement here or not. To be clear, let me explain my statement:

I'm not sure if this is commonplace in other geographic locations but in Vancouver there seems to be a rash of "no budget" indies popping up that request crew from a Craigslist ad for no compensation except a free DVD (not even mention of craft services...)

My point was pretty specific to THESE styles of indies - ones where the crew have probably never met each other and possibly met the director ONCE before showing up on set with an untested director who is EAGER to make his/her mark on the industry and has a number of effects shots set up without properly trained personnel and who may not have THOUGHT about the risks and liability or just ASSUMES that nothing bad will happen.

Hope this is a little more clear.

Sorry Shaun, that wasn't in response to what you wrote--true enough, it is more likely that accidents will occur on no-budget shoots due to lack of experience and safety knowledge.

What I was referring to is that someone mounting a feature may be more inclined to think about insurance whereas for a one or two day short, it's probably more rare. My point was the work is the same, the risks are the same.

I think this is one of the places where the industry needs to take a look at the cards and step up to the task. The fact of the matter is that liability and worker's comp is really expensive for a director who just wants to shoot a short over the course of a few days. But the fact of having insurance opens the door to using SAG actors and hiring professional crew.

There isn't nearly as much work in big projects as there was a few years ago. I have friends who were doing big studio projects just a few years ago, who are now paying the bills by shooting tiny little features in Eastern Europe. An odd day's work is something that a lot of people are going to appreciate in the future. And heck, with real actors and real DPs on board, we'll all enjoy those shorts we get lassoed into watching a lot more.

I know this is a digression but finding a way to allow indie filmmakers to buy workers comp for a handful of days, and sufficient liability for permits would serve us well.

I know this is a digression but finding a way to allow indie filmmakers to buy workers comp for a handful of days, and sufficient liability for permits would serve us well.

AND would protect the folks WORKING on a set.

Unfortunately, Workers Compensation/Insurance models look at the Risk associated and try to formulate a way to NOT lose money by offering insurance. Much the same as a Universal Healthcare system (I don't want to get into a debate about models here...) is supposed to SHARE the overall risk over a large contributory base.

The larger the base paying INTO an insurance system/scheme, the lower the OVERALL risk to the insurer, which is why the rates quoted by the insurer may seem high to a small production company (or individual freelancer).

The double edged sword here is that MOST "correct thinking people" would LIKE millions of dollars in liability and workers compensation insurance BUT would like to pay "just pennies a glass". Insurers would like to make money, not lose it. This is a balance that has some way to go to find a system that works for both. HOWEVER, BOTH PARTIES need to come to the table - filmmakers need to find a way to make the "numbers" part of the game make sense to the insurers (whether by industry associations or other means of "grouping" and sharing the overall burden and risk) if they want the protections offered by insurance.

I'm not arguing one way or the other but a LOT of people starting out in this industry seem to feel they are ENTITLED to rich protections but have no interest in contributing to the systems that make such protections work.

As a workplace safety and health activist and advocate for the past 15 years, this is VERY close to my heart. The problem seems to be that many small producers don't want to see their set as a workplace.

I personally would like to see EVERYONE on a set/in a studio/on location protected but the reality is SOMEONE has to pay for it SOMEWHERE. As a freelancer, should I be carrying my own? If so, does it make sense for a director to ask me to work for free or for less than a living wage? It would follow that by providing my own insurance, it is COSTING me money to work for free.

This post is meant to start discussion and self questioning, NOT to appear as a "soap box" rant.

It's a difficult topic.

This is a very, very important discussion and relevant to just about everyone here.

These days I'm bouncing between all levels of production myself. I know that when I'm on a big union show that I don't have to worry about coverage--in fact I sustained an injury on a movie last summer and production took care of all the paperwork with the state and I was able to immediately start therapy via workman's comp/state disability. But I'm also doing a lot of smaller jobs these days and I'm paying much more attention these days to protecting myself and my gear (every time equipment goes out of my house, even to help out a friend, I have them sign a loss/damage agreement). There are so many more zero-to-miniscule budget productions going on these days that statistically speaking, the number of incidents will naturally rise.

I've seen a definite change in my perspective on all of this and injuries in general over the years. In my early days I was just excited to work and willing to take all sorts of risks, some of which in retrospect were just plain stupid.

A few years ago in India an assistant director died after she was hit by a train while a film shoot was on in a railway station. the director (who had already done two bollywood movies) tried to hide the fact that she died on the tracks and told the police initially that she was hit by a car.

Accidents can happen anywhere, and being protected is the professional way to go about any business.

Having made five no-budget shorts and one micro-budget feature, I know that I should have got insurance (especially on the feature). being in india does afford me the opportunity to skip these things because -
a. I called every insurance company in town to insure my equipment. Nobody was interested.
b. The paperwork alone to insure a cast and crew of forty people was unbelievable.
In spite of wanting to get insurance, I decided to forego it. I understand getting insurance in the west for such activities is much more simpler, and one shouldn't eschew this responsibility.

But which kid with a camera and an idea is going to listen? Especially since he/she has saved for a year or more to get hold of the money to buy the camera. I think the process should be much more simpler - maybe then it'll find widespread use.

I would say that contemporary theatre provides the model that we are heading for. In 99 Seat Equity Theatre contracts, most professionals are basically working for free. Now they may get gigs at a full Equity contract from time to time, but in the real world, there isn't enough funding for enough productions to keep every deserving professional in a real paying job - and I'm presuming that the people in question are talented, well-trained and experienced enough to be able to expect a real wage. And there is genuine social value in 99 seat theatre - brilliant work is being done there. So, it can be with no-budget indie filmmaking, if we find ways to provide appropriate support.

To my mind, we need a non-profit consortium to purchase liability and worker's comp, which then brings small productions under their insurance umbrella. In California, in the past, you've only been able to purchase a Worker's Comp policy for three months - but a three month policy is not what's needed for a two day shoot. So, the producers are paying for a lot of policy that they cannot use. The cost of a liability policy is partially based on the budget of the production but there isn't liability available that reflects a $2k budget being spent over two days - even if it does reflect the million dollars in coverage required by most cities. Insurance companies want to make money and providing Worker's Comp for one week and liability for a $2k shoot isn't going to do that - that's why a non-profit is necessary to bridge the gap.

I've thought SAG should be leading the charge on this, but SAG, of course, has their hands full. Still, their actors would have a lot more union roles available to them if this issue could be resolved in a thoughtful way.

I've thought SAG should be leading the charge on this, but SAG, of course, has their hands full. Still, their actors would have a lot more union roles available to them if this issue could be resolved in a thoughtful way.

Thank you for the very well thought out response Lori.

If I can throw another tidbit in, I know nothing of the functioning of SAG but when I was working broadcast television, we were governed by the CEP union (Communications, Energy and Paperworkers - formerly NABET) while the journalists were represented by The Canadian Media Guild. Well, when the broadcaster went to the Industrial Relations Board and argued that negotiating with 3 unions (2 CEP locals and one CMG local) was undue hardship, the IRB agreed and put the choice of ONE union to negotiate on EVERYONE'S behalf to a vote - as talent outnumbered technicians, the Guild won. And slowly the hard fought rights that technicians had won around terms of service such as meal breaks, turnaround time, shift premiums and the like disappeared while the talent stayed the same or benefited.

Again, I know NOTHING about SAG but I can tell you that as a former acting president of a CEP local (a SMALL freelance media local not affiliated with the broadcaster in question), I PERSONALLY would have SOME hesitation around being represented by a "talent" union or organization and I THINK a number of my colleagues that went through the same things I speak of here feel the same.

And I would LOVE to have my fears proven false, I really would.

Hey Silas-

I'm working on a feature right now, and I've found the most inexpensive insurance to be through "Fractured Atlas." They are a non-profit of of NYC, they are not an insurance broker per se, but they work with insurance companies to find you a good deal on insurance. You do have to be a member to use this service, which costs $95 a year. But there quotes to me have been lower than anyone else- $425 for general liability, $495 for equipment. Because you are only using volunteer labor you should be able to get a "volunteer accident insurance policy" through them for about $175.

I should also say that I have found them to be very easy to communicate with, and really on top of things when it comes to answering questions and addressing concerns.

Hope this helps.


Thanks for the info Sam,
Do you know if the volunteer accident insurance policy would actually replace the W/C ??
I could ask the city and county we are filming in but tell me how it works with the film you are/were making please.

Thanks for the reply and sorry about the delay in getting back