J_R
There are a number of us that have stated the opinion that the Safety Code should be viewed as a list of exclusions to the insurance.
The structure of a liability insurance policy doesn't have a statement of things that are covered. It uses language such as " to pay on behalf of the insured all sums legally obligated to pay for bodily injury and property damage arising out of..." , subject to policy terms, definitions and exclusions. In a nut shell, if it is not excluded, it is covered. It will also have to meet policy defintions such as "accident" or "occurrence" neither expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured, thus intentional acts are not covered.
You can argue ad infinitum if this is covered or that is covered, the answer is going to be based on an examination of facts of a specific situation. An insurance policy is not a theoretical instrument.
A safety code needs to be concise, easily understood by a broad segment and address certain kinds of behavior. Insurance policy exclusions are based on law, sometimes using awkward appearing language because that particular language has previously come from litigation and holds specific court interpretation. Not everyone will find reading insurance policy exclusions a handy way to equate to a safety code.
So, continue with whatever floats your boat.
