Insurer Can’t Avoid Litigation Costs For HIV Infected Performers


Please read this carefully, it is VERY relevant, even though it is about legal fees NOT about compensation for performers…Again it dispells the No on set transmission BS….

From CourthouseNews.

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Two days after California voters rejected a proposal to require condoms for porn actors, a federal judge told an insurer it can’t avoid covering litigation costs over performers infected with HIV.

Michigan-based Atain Specialty Insurance Company sued CEO Peter Acworth in November last year, claiming the fetish porn king must cover his own legal bills and possible settlements in three lawsuits filed by HIV-infected porn actors.

Acworth and his company, Armory Studios, transformed a 200,000-square foot castle in San Francisco’s Mission District into massive porn studio that specializes in fetishes, bondage and sadomasochism films.

In April 2015, a man identified as John Doe sued Acworth and, claiming he contracted HIV in two years earlier while performing in a film titled “Bound in Public.” Doe says he notified weeks later, but the studio kept his status a secret from other actors.

Two other performers sued Acworth last year as well, claiming they contracted HIV during various porn shoots in 2013. The actors, two men and one woman, say they were subjected to unprotected sex with members of the public and that producers told them they would be “out of a job” if they asked to use condoms.

During a summary judgment hearing Thursday, Atain’s attorney GailAnn Stargardter argued a “physical and sexual abuse” exemption in the armory’s insurance policy exempts her client from footing the bill for those state court lawsuits.

U.S. District Judge James Donato disagreed, finding the insurance contract does not exclude coverage for litigation arising from any sexual act that occurs on the premises.

Whether or not the studio took adequate steps to protect actors is irrelevant, Donato said, because the exclusion only covers sexual acts caused by an omission.

“The presence or absence of HIV safeguards did not cause them to have sex,” Donato declared.

Stargardter cited a 1996 ruling from the Northern District of Texas, Acceptance Ins. Co. v. Bhugra Enterprises Inc., which found an insurer was not liable to defend a hotel owner sued by a guest for failing to prevent a rape due to inadequate lighting and security on the premises.

But Donato said that case was different because the sexual act occurred due to the property owner’s negligence. In this case, the injury was caused by alleged negligence, not the sexual act, he said.

“They were paid actors, paid to have sex,” Donato said. “There’s no omission you can hang your hat on to deny coverage.”

Donato appeared unmoved by the attorney’s contention that the Armory was complicit in requiring porn actors to perform without condoms and that her client is not required to defend the studio in any lawsuit arising from a sexual act.

“How did anything the building owner do cause them to have sex,” Donato asked. “They were going to do that anyway.”

Earlier this week, California voters rejected a ballot measure that would have required the state’s billion-dollar porn industry to use condoms in all films.

State law has required condom use in adult films since 1992, but proponents of the failed ballot measure, Proposition 60, argued that law is rarely enforced.

Acworth, a British citizen, purchased the 200,000-square foot Moorish castle, formerly a training facility for the National Guard Armory and Arsenal, for $14.5 million in 2007.

It was during a film shot at the armory that Doe claims he was blindfolded and forced to perform oral sex on dozens of “untested, unidentified members of the general public.” Doe says he had a cut in his mouth during the performance and tested positive for HIV two weeks later.

141570cookie-checkInsurer Can’t Avoid Litigation Costs For HIV Infected Performers

Insurer Can’t Avoid Litigation Costs For HIV Infected Performers

Share This

3 Responses

  1. Saw a Girls Do Porn scene and the girl gave the faceless male talent oral sex, then he puts on a condom to fuck her, takes it off for more oral sex, and puts it back on to fuck her some more. How does that not put her at risk for a disease?

  2. Even if he had worn that condom for the whole sex act there is still a risk of VD even assuming no irritation caused from it. Condoms do break and slip off of the penis — even during civilian sex, herpes and syphilis lesions aren’t always covered by condoms, someone could have herpes of the mouth and pass it on while “eating her out”, etc. Certainly a condom should not be reused (they are less than a dollar each in the US even in small quantity, it is unnecessary to re-use condoms if someone has any brains at all) but they aren’t perfect anyway. There is always a risk of VD during sex, if you can’t accept that than you are too young or anal to fuck. Civilians should use condoms in most instances (if you are in a long term monogamous relationship and one of you has been clipped condoms may be a waste of time and money) but sex in porn is just too hard on condoms and condoms irritate pussies so they aren’t reasonable to use there.

  3. Generally dismiss rumors …not really I tuck em in my cap just in case it’s a fire not a mirror under the smoke.

    “Doe says he notified weeks later, but the studio kept his status a secret from other actors.” that’s the rumor I’d heard that made the consent angle a slam dunk on the two lawsuits we discussed in comments here last year. beyond acknowledging there is a third suit to my knowledge no one has publicly torn apart this third lawsuit.

    Keeping in mind this is all still rumor I’m leaning toward the fire not mirrors behind the smoke. Insurance companies know it’s bad for business to sue policy holders so they mostly fight to minimize their payout, raise rates or pull out of certain markets aka create blind pools where potential policyholders are assigned rather than choose an insurer.

    Can’t imagine a scenario where an insurer suing a policyholder “must cover his own legal bills and possible settlements in three lawsuits filed by HIV-infected porn actors.” unless that was their best option to minimize the payout. Which means they expect this to cost lots.

Leave a Reply