Businesses Hit Treasury Terrorism Insurance Report
National News • June 30, 2005
The business lobby, Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism, is blasting as "flawed" and illogical the Treasury Department's report recommending against renewal of the federal Terrorism Risk ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: Business Coalition Misguided & Misinformed
Posted On: June 30, 2005, 2:29 pm CDT
Posted By: Don P
Comment:
In the article, a respresentative of REITs states "The Treasury study released today on terrorism insurance is flawed. It does not present an accurate picture of the current terrorism insurance marketplace and fails to acknowledge that the risk of terrorism is unknowable," said CIAT Martin L. DePoy, vice president for government relations at the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts"
Thomas F Motamed, Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of Chubb speaking a few months ago at a Big I regional forum, told us that we now have Cat models for terrorism that can predict the incidence and severity of the exposure, and that the industry has the capacity to reinsure it. It is the lack of sustainable reinsurance through stable reinsurance partners that has been the stumbling block.
While Csizar is correct in surmising a regulatory role on TRI, he is again touting federal regulation that would end up with deregulation on the state level. There is no reason that this could not be regulated on a state level, even though the issue is one of national concern. In fact, most of the geographic areas where terrorism coverage is a concern are concentrated in regional metropolitan areas that could be served by state regulation without a paradigm shift in regulation to the federal level. The PCI would love to erode that principle!
Subject: Business Coalition Misguided & Misinformed
Thomas F Motamed, Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of Chubb speaking a few months ago at a Big I regional forum, told us that we now have Cat models for terrorism that can predict the incidence and severity of the exposure, and that the industry has the capacity to reinsure it. It is the lack of sustainable reinsurance through stable reinsurance partners that has been the stumbling block.
While Csizar is correct in surmising a regulatory role on TRI, he is again touting federal regulation that would end up with deregulation on the state level. There is no reason that this could not be regulated on a state level, even though the issue is one of national concern. In fact, most of the geographic areas where terrorism coverage is a concern are concentrated in regional metropolitan areas that could be served by state regulation without a paradigm shift in regulation to the federal level. The PCI would love to erode that principle!