The introduction of federal terrorism coverage could tempt some insurers into taking on exposure irresponsibly and have the perverse effect of casting doubt on ratings, according to a Standard & Poor’s report.
“The concern is some insurers could use federal backing as a crutch,” Fred Loeloff, a director in Standard & Poor’s insurance ratings, remarked. “From a ratings perspective, you need to have confidence in the exposure-management capabilities of the insurer, that it can properly assess and manage its risks, without depending on government backing.”
Reportedly, although there is a compelling case for government-backstop legislation to ease constraints in the U.S. economy, its importance to insurers has diminished in the past year because carriers have drastically reduced their exposure to terror events.
Another concern is that those states which now permit insurers to exclude terrorism from policy contracts, could reverse themselves and require the coverage.
“Our sensitivities will be increased because companies will, either by
mandate or voluntarily, be exposed to terrorism risk,” Steve Dreyer, managing director, warned.
How States Rank in Injury Prevention
More Top Executives Say Bribes for Business Acceptable
Study: Drug Testing Driving Calif. Workers’ Comp Costs
Maryland’s State-Run WC Insurer IWIF to Become Private Nonprofit Co.
Saints’ Vilma Sues NFL Commissioner Goodell for Defamation
Safety Report Cites Lack of Progress in Reducing Motorcyclist Deaths
A Year after Joplin Tornadoes, $2.16B in Insurance Claims Paid
Safety Inspections Don’t Hurt Businesses; Do Lower Workers’ Comp Costs: Study
