3D printing has allowed the fantasy world to breakinto the reality of everyday life. By downloading or creatinga model on special software and directing it to the printer, userscan bring any object from virtual to tangible desktop withindays.

As any fantasy may have a dark side, insurers and litigators arescrambling to wrap their heads around the implications of atechnology that can, hypothetically, make any physical objectappear out of thin air.

“The premise of the printer is to create something you couldn'totherwise create in your home, in a 3D form,” says William F.Knowles, member of the global insurance department at law firmCozen O'Connor. He points out that unknowns of the technologyextend to environmental and health hazards, copyright issues andthe possibility of bodily harm.

Risk associated with the new technology is a ”uniquearea without any precedent” in legal or risk managementprotocols.

A 3D printer manifests an object by depositing thin layers ofmaterial—from plastic to resin, gold, chocolate, bone, marble, evenliving tissue—into contoured layers in a “bottom-up” buildingapproach that creates a solid form without wasting resources. Themore readily available materials for printers, however, may exposeusers to hazardous chemicals.

Research reported in a November 2013 article in AtmosphericEnvironment journal states that “many desktop 3D printers rely onheated thermoplastic extrusion and deposition, which is a processthat has been shown to have significant aerosol emissions inindustrial environments,” but lacks data on particle emissions fromcommercially available printers.

Many of these devices are sold without any exhaust or filtrationactivities and used in unfiltered indoor environments whileemitting ultrafine particles known to be “acutely toxic” tomammals.

“Depending on state law, the 3d printer manufacturer anddistributor may be liable for putting adequate warnings on theprinting liquid and the actual printing machine,” says Knowles.“And if the ventilation system does not work correctly, themanufacturer of that product could also be held liable [in atoxicity claim for long-or short-term exposure].”

According to Knowles, the outcomes of previous asbestos claimsor those stemming from exposure to chemicals or irritants may beused to guide such scenarios. However, when the illnessstarted—whether during the opening of the chemical packaging or thepoint at which symptoms were noticed—may be difficult todetermine.

Since their inception in 1984, companies, medical organizationsand individuals have used 3D printers to create parts for aerospaceoperations, prosthetic limbs, or art installations.

But who technically owns the finished product—the blueprint'sdesigner, the printing entity, or the person using it? Knowles saysanyone active in the printing process can be named in a copyrightclaims surrounding a design.

Knowles says, “The copyright issue would start with the user ofthe printer; the one who asks the technology to print an item andgo further depending on how the 3D printer and operated created themodel to how the design's creator was offering their service—therewould at least be a claim, whether viable or not.”

And then, who is responsible for what happens to the finishedproduct, or what it does to other people or property?

Research company Gartner predicts that worldwide shipments of 3Dprinters priced less than $100,000 will grow by nearly 50 percentthis year to reach a total of 56,507 units sold in 2013.

Customers will have access to the prototype for the Liberator, aplastic handgun designed by political campaigners DefenseDistributed, which the Washington Post reports was downloaded morethan 100,000 times before officers demanded the blueprint'sremoval.

It is possible that a person attempting to use a Liberator toshoot at a safe target may be unaware of a flaw that arose duringprinting, but which causes it to explode in their hand.

“The person who is hurt could go after the person who printedthe gun and/or the entity that provided the design, depending onthe facts of the claim,” says Knowles. “It could fall under ahomeowners policy that has a liability section; however there islikely going to be some level of inquiry around whether this was abusiness pursuit.

In that case, says Knowles, “The designer should have a GeneralLiability policy and design liability policy. It would depend onthe state in which the litigation is processed and the claimantwould have to show connection between the design and theshooting.”

Until the repercussions of 3D printing technology are morewidely established, the claims environment surrounding it maycontinue to resemble the fictitious world of the Wild West.