Unless you've been living on a boat in themiddle of nowhere or in a cabin without internet access, you'veprobably heard of Pokémon Go. Never in my wildest dreams did Ithink I would be writing about the liability issues associated withan electronic fantasy game, but Pokémon Go is not your averagecraze. With millions of gamers playing it worldwide, the fact thatit crosses over from fantasy into the physical world brings somevery real liabilities with it, and all of them occur in the realworld.

Hopefully there won't be a lot of new claims associated with thegame, but if there are, they will be investigated just like anyother. A number of auto accidents and robberies have already beenattributed to people playing the game. There have even been someshootings and many incidents of trespassers looking for Pokémon“gyms.”

Museums and famous landmarks have not been immune either.Anxious to maximize the game's popularity, some businesses,stadiums and landmarks have offered special times when hunters cansearch for the elusive creatures without fear of trespassing. A fewhave even hired “guides” to help the intrepid hunters findcharacters.

While the players, property owners and drivers all share someliability when there are incidents, the case can be made thatNiantic Labs, the creator of the game, could also be liable in someinstances. Despite the fact that the end user license agreement aplayer agrees to before playing specifically states that theindividual agrees to binding arbitration for any disputes, andwaives any right to a class action lawsuit or jury trial, thecompany could still be sued by a party who was not playing thegame.

And since this is Niantic's second foray into the world ofaugmented reality, (they released Ingress two years ago), theycannot claim to be unfamiliar with the issues raised by peoplepursuing fantasy portals and creatures in the real world. Ingresssent players to museums and other places of interest, encouragingthem to take photos of sculptures and other infrastructurefacilities as part of the game.

Some players were stopped by police for loitering and it raisedsecurity issues since the game could be used as a cover for peoplewith terrorist or other malicious intentions.

As is the case whenever new technology is introduced, newinsurance issues are quick to follow. (Consider cell phones andautonomous cars.) Regardless of the cause of the claims relating tothe game, insurers will be staying firmly grounded in the realworld as they investigate and determine what coverage mightapply.

Paricia L. Harman is the editor-in-chief of Claims magazine.Opinions expressed are the author's.