Watermelon Man said:

---

Regardless, I would suspect Alec Baldwin had a considerable umbrella policy that would cover his liability should the other policies not provide coverage. After all, it would be the responsible thing to do to make sure others are protected from any negligent acts he may commit.

---

Negligence and / or criminal activity likely voids all insurance coverage, including the duty to defend (this will vary by state law).

For instance, if Alec is the driver of a car on set and he recklessly drives too fast, acting a fool, hot rodding and forgets to turn at the last moment and runs over the other actors, he is likely going to be charged with a crime and he was acting negligently in regards to the safety of other actors.

In short terms, you cannot by insurance that covers you in regards to criminal and / or negligent actions. If you know a carrier, please post as I would be interested in such policy.

Not sure of the employer / employment relationships in the film industry, particularly in regards to the low budget nature of this film. Likely every person, from actors to camerapeople to set-builders are 1099 contractors, working under separate subcontracting agreements.

I would suspect there are indemnity clauses whereby the subcontractor agrees to hold the entity they are subcontracted with harmless in the event of loss. But most states have cracked down on such indemnities. One major focus of this crackdown was to very clearly indicated that the subcontractor cannot provide an indemnification in regards to the negligence of the entity there are subcontracted to.

So Alec is not going to get any and certainly not full insurance coverage both for claim and likely for duty to defend provisions as well. But I suspect Mr. Baldwin IS smart enough to have very few assets in his name.

For instance, his houses are probably owned by Big Baldwin's Pimparse House, LLC from which he leases the home from and pays a monthly or annual lease. In turn, any one working on that house from maid services to lawn care are subcontracted to BBPH, LLC. Same likely also applies to his cars, offices, hell he may have his furnishings "leased".

fka ftc said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Regardless, I would suspect Alec Baldwin had a considerable umbrella policy that would cover his liability should the other policies not provide coverage. After all, it would be the responsible thing to do to make sure others are protected from any negligent acts he may commit.

---

Negligence and / or criminal activity likely voids all insurance coverage, including the duty to defend (this will vary by state law).

For instance, if Alec is the driver of a car on set and he recklessly drives too fast, acting a fool, hot rodding and forgets to turn at the last moment and runs over the other actors, he is likely going to be charged with a crime and he was acting negligently in regards to the safety of other actors.

In short terms, you cannot by insurance that covers you in regards to criminal and / or negligent actions. If you know a carrier, please post as I would be interested in such policy.

Not sure of the employer / employment relationships in the film industry, particularly in regards to the low budget nature of this film. Likely every person, from actors to camerapeople to set-builders are 1099 contractors, working under separate subcontracting agreements.

I would suspect there are indemnity clauses whereby the subcontractor agrees to hold the entity they are subcontracted with harmless in the event of loss. But most states have cracked down on such indemnities. One major focus of this crackdown was to very clearly indicated that the subcontractor cannot provide an indemnification in regards to the negligence of the entity there are subcontracted to.

So Alec is not going to get any and certainly not full insurance coverage both for claim and likely for duty to defend provisions as well. But I suspect Mr. Baldwin IS smart enough to have very few assets in his name.

For instance, his houses are probably owned by Big Baldwin's Pimparse House, LLC from which he leases the home from and pays a monthly or annual lease. In turn, any one working on that house from maid services to lawn care are subcontracted to BBPH, LLC. Same likely also applies to his cars, offices, hell he may have his furnishings "leased".

---

What a ridiculous post.

Of course insurance protects the policy holder from acts of negligence (your inclusion of criminal activity is a red herring). Acts of negligence is what it is for. If you run a stop sign and T-bone a soccer mom's SUV full of soccerettes, your insurance will pay for damages to the limit of the coverage, despite you were undeniably negligent when you ran the stop sign.

In addition, if you have real assets other than your homestead (I don't think your homestead is claimable), you probably have an umbrella policy to protect you from seizure of those assets due to such claims. These policies are designed specifically to provide coverage for such cases.

Of course, if you don't have other assets, you may not have this additional coverage, which could be considered irresponsible since by not having such coverage you are limiting what others can collect due to your negligence.

Methinks you may be a bit naive. I know you'd rather hear a "legal" opinion, but a simple Google search reveals that not all negligence is "covered" by merely having a liability policy for X $$. And, the example the previous poster gave about an actor running over people (actors) in a car could describe a criminal act. What Baldwin did could be ruled criminal by a Grand jury, and a Petit jury could convict him. Wonder if Miss hawg will agree with that statement. Believe she's already alluded to as much several times already on this thread. And, despite your protestations to the contrary, Baldwin's insurance may refuse to pay a claim, leaving him solely responsible to make his victims whole again. Which brings us back to the opinion I expressed that Baldwin will likely shirk responsibility and refuse to allow his assets to be liquidated for restitution. But, that's not a legal opinion; just my take on the man's character. Ymmv

Thanks BoerneGator. Agree Hawg will walk circles around any knowledge I have gained through the business experience and not legal education / experience. If Alec has been given good advice, he has learned how to protect wealth from lawsuits.

Not sure Watermelon is able to understand how the real works. This is from law professor on this specific subject:

Any film requires insurance coverage and any policy for a Western would hit upon the use of horses, other animals and firearms. The call sheet for Thursday alone mentions multiple guns, several horses and a daily snake wrangler.

An insurer would likely cover any accidental events, but the company might not pay for negligence claims on a movie set, according to Julie Shapiro, law professor and director of Loyola Law School's Entertainment and Media Law Institute.

https://time.com/6110696/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-legal-action/

Let me know how ridiculous I am by offering knowledge and real life experiences.

Alec would have been aware of the 3 previous instances of "accidental" discharge of supposedly "cold guns" and did not change procedure, apparently. Given his long career in acting, particularly in movies involving use of firearms /props, leaves him little excuse to not handling the weapon with reasonable care.

He had courses and instruction in handling weapons in general but also specific to a movie set. Plaintiff will show all sorts of video both from the actual movies, any outtakes, costarring folks. There is likely record of previous sets and what protocols and safe guards did they have in place. They may even get course certificate.

fka ftc said:

---

Thanks BoerneGator. Agree Hawg will walk circles around any knowledge I have gained through the business experience and not legal education / experience. If Alec has been given good advice, he has learned how to protect wealth from lawsuits.

Not sure Watermelon is able to understand how the real works. This is from law professor on this specific subject:

Any film requires insurance coverage and any policy for a Western would hit upon the use of horses, other animals and firearms. The call sheet for Thursday alone mentions multiple guns, several horses and a daily snake wrangler.

An insurer would likely cover any accidental events, but the company might not pay for negligence claims on a movie set, according to Julie Shapiro, law professor and director of Loyola Law School's Entertainment and Media Law Institute.

https://time.com/6110696/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-legal-action/

Let me know how ridiculous I am by offering knowledge and real life experiences.

Alec would have been aware of the 3 previous instances of "accidental" discharge of supposedly "cold guns" and did not change procedure, apparently. Given his long career in acting, particularly in movies involving use of firearms /props, leaves him little excuse to not handling the weapon with reasonable care.

He had courses and instruction in handling weapons in general but also specific to a movie set. Plaintiff will show all sorts of video both from the actual movies, any outtakes, costarring folks. There is likely record of previous sets and what protocols and safe guards did they have in place. They may even get course certificate.

---

That time article and the attributed quote from Julie Shapiro are just flat wrong (I hope they misquoted her if she is a law professor) . I am a lawyer who defends companies and individuals from personal injury lawsuits involving claims of negligence, all of which involve insurance providing coverage for the alleged negligent acts of my clients.

I think what is happening is we are conflating the term "negligence" with criminal acts, recklessness and gross negligence. The legal term gross negligence refers to an act showing a severe and reckless disregard for the lives or safety of another person. While ordinary negligence involves the failure to provide an adequate level of care or caution, gross negligence is far more severe in its level of apathy or indifference. Insurance specifically covers negligence, but some policies do not cover gross negligence, and almost all have no coverage for criminal acts.

I do think that, given the facts as we know them (the armorer job and the prop master job being combined, the relative inexperience of the armorer, the presence of live ammo on the set, the multiple reported discharges on this set and on the Nic Cage movie)), we may be looking at a case of gross negligence. However, as a practical matter, the lawsuit will be for negligence AND gross negligence. It is the allegations of ordinary negligence that will trigger the insurance coverage.

Alec Baldwin on police shootings:

" Baldwin, 63, had tweeted on Sept. 23, 2017, about Huntington Beach police officer Eric Esparza being caught on video shooting dead Dillan Tabares, 27, who'd punched him and reached for his gun.

"I wonder how it must feel to wrongfully kill someone," the actor wrote of the police shooting that the Orange County District Attorney's Office later ruled had been justified."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/10/22/alec-baldwin-haunted-over-old-tweet-about-fatal-cop-shooting/amp/

Sarge 91 said:

---

* * *

I do think that, given the facts as we know them (the armorer job and the prop master job being combined, the relative inexperience of the armorer, the presence of live ammo on the set, the multiple reported discharges on this set and on the Nic Cage movie)), we may be looking at a case of gross negligence. However, as a practical matter, the lawsuit will be for negligence AND gross negligence. It is the allegations of ordinary negligence that will trigger the insurance coverage.

---

The legal maneuvering will be interesting. Seems to me the insurer will have to farm out Baldwin's defense so they can argue no coverage either through establishing gross negligence (if it isn't covered, which is likely), or failure to properly follow proper protocols (Hawg has covered this. It reasonably assumes the policy sets specific guidelines to be followed). Will recovery be limited to the 6 million established by the LLC? They'll obviously try to go after Baldwin personally, but will they succeed? If they do succeed, how well has he protected his assets from such an event?

a crewmember that was packing everything up after the shooting was bitten on the arm by a brown recluse and may require amputation.

https://news.sky.com/story/alec-baldwin-film-shooting-rust-crew-member-in-hospital-for-multiple-surgeries-after-spider-bite-12462638

What'd they do? Ignore it for a week?

i would guess that they weren't allowed to tear down until investigations were done. obviously not related to alec, but just another tragic circumstance surrounding this film.

There are reports that Baldwin is now saying that movie studios should be required to hire off-duty police officers to handle and check the weapons.

I think that he means someone in addition to the armorer.

It would be rather difficult to use an off duty police officer as the armorer since that would mean scheduling any activities requiring an armorer based on the off duty availability of a police officer.

What he probably wants is an extra layer of scapegoats to take the blame.

eric76 said:

---

I think that he means someone in addition to the armorer.

It would be rather difficult to use an off duty police officer as the armorer since that would mean scheduling any activities requiring an armorer based on the off duty availability of a police officer.

What he probably wants is an extra layer of scapegoats to take the blame.

---

Too late she's already dead

Why didn't he fire an off duty LEO then, he's in charge?

Burdizzo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There are reports that Baldwin is now saying that movie studios should be required to hire off-duty police officers to handle and check the weapons.

---

Typical.

His production appears to have failed to follow many established protocols and procedures, so his answer is to pile on more protocols and procedures along with law enforcement.

---

The was not a studio production, though. This is an indie film, no studio involved.

aggiehawg said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There are reports that Baldwin is now saying that movie studios should be required to hire off-duty police officers to handle and check the weapons.

---

Typical.

His production appears to have failed to follow many established protocols and procedures, so his answer is to pile on more protocols and procedures along with law enforcement.

---

The was not a studio production, though. This is an indie film, no studio involved.

---

Studio, schmudio.

Somebody's name is on it as producer whether they work for a studio or do it as an indie.

Appreciate the clarification. I was too tired to look back up gross negligence and IANAL. Appreciate lawyers such as yourself to defend people and companies against all lawsuits, whether they are legit or a frivolous money grab.

Alec will never go to trial. Hes been making dumbarse comments for years. And I am sure folks have personal recordings of him saying even dumber dookie.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

eric76 said:

---

There are reports that Baldwin is now saying that movie studios should be required to hire off-duty police officers to handle and check the weapons.

---

If he feels this is important, why didn't he do it?

He's attempting to shirk the blame. I'm sure he'd say that's the studio's responsibility. But no matter how he tries to blame shift, if you have a firearm, you are responsible for it.

Quote:

---

When someone gets killed during a workplace accident there will pretty much inevitably be lawsuits that follow. That's the case with the shooting of two people (and the death of one of them) by Alec Baldwin on the set of the now-shelved movie Rust. The latest lawsuit turned up yesterday, filed by attorneys for Mamie Mitchell, the script supervisor on the set. The information she reveals adds yet another twist to the already convoluted story of how live ammunition showed up on the set and how everything went so horribly wrong. It may also suggest a bit more culpability on Baldwin's part if it turns out that any criminal charges are eventually filed as a result of the killing.

---

Quote:

---

A lawsuit filed Wednesday alleges that Alec Baldwin recklessly fired a gun when it wasn't called for in the script when he shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injured director Joel Souza on the New Mexico set of the film "Rust."

"There was nothing in the script about the gun being discharged by DEFENDANT BALDWIN or by any other person," the lawsuit from script supervisor Mamie Mitchell says.

The lawsuit is the second to stem from the shooting, with many more expected.

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps more interesting are the new details of what precisely was going on during the filming when the shooting took place. Mitchell reveals that they were rehearsing for a scene that would involve filming "three tight shots of Baldwin." One would be a close-up on his eyes. A second would focus on a bloodstain on his shoulder and the last one would be on his torso "as he pulled the gun from a holster." That would be the infamous "cross-draw" that we've discussed here previously.

But the plaintiff goes on to say that nothing in her script called for Baldwin to point the gun in the direction of the camera crew and he was not scheduled to pull the trigger. So was he just screwing around? Or perhaps he was improvising and thought firing the weapon would make the scene more exciting? If Joel Souza (the director who was also injured) had decided on the fly to add a gunshot to the scene, that probably wouldn't be too much out of the ordinary, but it seems like Mitchell would have mentioned that because it would have deflated her lawsuit quite a bit.

---

Quote:

---

In addition to Baldwin, the lawsuit names assistant director David Halls (who handed Baldwin the revolver) and armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed. I mention these three specifically because they were directly in the chain of custody of the firearm and responsible for making sure that it was "cold," or safe. Investigators are still holding open the possibility of criminal charges in this case, and if it can be shown that there was no plan for the weapon to be pointed and the trigger pulled during that scene, does Baldwin's culpability increase and the level of responsibility for the other people on the set go down?

---

Link

Oops!!

George Clooney is on Marc Maron's podcast this week. Some good conversation on the incident and on Brandon Lee. He mentioned that he has always closely rechecked every firearm handed to him and would also then show it to the individual(s) he would be firing at. Very critical on all the failures that happened and sounded genuine with his personal experiences.

Actually, this article summarizes it all pretty well.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/george-clooney-brandon-lee-rust-alec-baldwin-movie-1235048072/

All that lawsuit tells me is that Gloria Allred doesn't know anything about drawing a revolver.

The MINUTE I saw her standing next to the woman (,who's suing), I thought how she (Allred), must have trolled HARD to find a client in that group.

TexasRebel said:

---

All that lawsuit tells me is that Gloria Allred doesn't know anything about drawing a revolver.

---

You are not paying attention here. I have been saying all along that the script needed to be consulted for what the shot (no pun intended) was scripted to include.

According to the script manager, the scenes being rehearsed did not include one where he was to point the gun anywhere. Just do the cross-draw, and cut! The camera was on his torso, not the gun. Not the barrel of the gun into the camera.

There might have been another shot (again no pun intended) wherein pointing the gun was in the script but it was not in the scenes they were rehearsing at that time.

That changes the calculus here big time.

This.

Cops really don't shoot that much. I'm pretty sure I've put more rounds downrange than most officers.

CheeseSndwch said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There are reports that Baldwin is now saying that movie studios should be required to hire off-duty police officers to handle and check the weapons.

---

Nothing against any of the LEOs who post here but police officers aren't exactly weapons experts. I couldn't imagine them handling the variety of weapons that would be on a movie set.

---

Are you nuts?

Its only true for metro areas

The experts

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/dec/01/alec-baldwin-shooting-investigators-track-source-of-live-ammunition-on-rust-set

Quote:

---

uthorities are pursuing new leads on possible sources of live ammunition involved in actor Alec Baldwin's fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of a western, as they searched the premises of an Albuquerque-based firearms and ammunition supplier.

The search took place after a provider of firearms and ammunition to the ill-fated movie production Rust told investigators that he "may know" where live rounds came from, describing ammunition he received from a friend in the past that had been "reloaded" by assembly from parts.

---

Quote:

---

Seth Kenney and his business PDQ Arm & Prop provided movie-prop ammunition and weapons to the production. According to an affidavit from the Santa Fe County sheriff's office, which is leading the investigation, Kenney told a detective on 29 October that a few years previously, he had received "'reloaded ammunition' from a friend", and that the ammunition stood out in his memory because of a star-shaped company logo.

---

Quote:

---

Tuesday's search-warrant affidavit contains some new details about the handling and loading of the gun that killed Hutchins before it was handed to Baldwin by an assistant director.
Investigators say that the armourer on the film, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, loaded the gun with five dummy rounds, but struggled to add a sixth before a lunch break, when the revolver was locked in a truck. The final round was added after lunch when the gun was cleaned.
Gutierrez Reed "stated the guns were checked on set, however she 'didn't really check [the firearm] too much', due to it being locked up at lunch," according to the new affidavit.

---

Struggled? The cylinder was so dirty that they couldn't load it?

https://nypost.com/2021/11/30/alec-baldwins-bullet-could-have-been-from-previous-film-warrant/

Quote:

---

On Oct. 27, investigators searched the prop truck after learning there was "additional ammunition collected of which some are suspect live ammunition," the warrant said. The truck was unlocked by PDQ Arm & Prop's Seth Kenney, sheriff's wrote.

Kenney told cops the ammo included "dummy rounds and blanks" from manufacturer Starline Brass, which only sells bullet components, not live rounds, according to the warrant. However, the deadly round was emblazoned with the Starline Brass logo, and Kenney later told cops that could have been because "he received 'reloaded ammunition' from a friend" real ammo made from the harmless components, police said.

---

Quote:

---

Gutierrez-Reed told investigators she and prop master Sarah Zachry put five dummy rounds in the long-barrel Colt .45 before lunch on the day of the disaster, but one round would not go in, so she cleaned "it" out and put another round in after lunch. She said "she didn't really check it too much" before putting the final round in because the gun had been locked during lunch, according to the warrant.

---

So the armorer was there when it was loaded. How could you not notice that it had a projectile and not a wad or crimp on it?

Quote:

---

"Sarah advised the ammunition for Rust was provided from various sources, to include Seth Kenney, some Hannah brought from a previous production, and extra rounds from an individual identified as 'Billy Ray,'" sheriff's wrote.

---

https://people.com/movies/alec-baldwin-will-do-first-sit-down-interview-with-george-stephanopoulos-following-rust-shooting/

Quote:

---

Alec Baldwin will do his first interview since he discharged a gun that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injured director Joel Souza, a source confirms to PEOPLE.

---

I don't see how this is a good idea on his part