A Future Without the Terrorism Insurance Backstop?

January 18, 2013
ground-zero

  • January 18, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    Agent says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 0

    Some Commercial carriers allow a customer to reject Terrorism for a credit on premium while others build it into the cost of coverage with no rejection possible. Some have Terrorism on General Liability. I have never quite understood how Terrorism is an exposure to a General Liability policy and no one has explained it to my satisfaction. I see the possibility that this act could go away since 9/11/2001 is fading fast and many don’t think it will happen again. Personally, I think it can and may in the next few years.

    • January 22, 2013 at 5:18 pm
      An actuary says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 1

      “I have never quite understood how Terrorism is an exposure to a General Liability policy and no one has explained it to my satisfaction.”

      Lax security that allows an event to occur. I agree that it’s a stretch, but there is some liability exposure.

    • January 29, 2013 at 3:53 pm
      James Rich says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      TRIA regulations require the carrier to offer TRIA cover for all commercial property, GL and WC policies, plus a few other commercial lines. The policyholder has the option to buy or decline, so if a carrier will not allow a client to decline the coverage, they are violating the TRIA statute.

      I hope this helps clarify a little bit.

  • January 18, 2013 at 3:42 pm
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    This article does not address Workers Compensation where the benefits for medical claims are unlimited and the issue is availability not cost.

  • January 18, 2013 at 3:58 pm
    Pierre Trudeau says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with your comment on TRIA with GL. How exactly could this coverage be triggered unless our insured was complicit in having caused the event in which case it would be an intentional act and thus excluded anyway. Wierd.

  • January 18, 2013 at 4:03 pm
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 1

    The number one duty of any governmental entity is to protect it’s citizenry form internal and external strife. And on 9/11/2001 it failed miserably. And then it required to insurers to provide terrorism coverage going forward. Because successful terrorist attacks are at least partially responsible due to lack of effectiveness of such governemntal entities, the case for providing some kind of backstop is easy to make in my mind. But insuers should be on the hook too, as they currently are. How much of a backstop should be provided is debatable.

    As far as how a GL policy could be responsible for providing terrorism insurance, think about a security company or owner of an establishment which is a terrorist target and fails to properly protect a target adequately. In the case of the Twin Towers, there’s not much they could have done to prevent planes from crashing into them other than equipping them with SAM’s (surface to air missiles – as the White House does). But the airlines certainly could be at least somewhat responsible for not having better security and betetr doors on the cockpits, two things they now do.

  • January 18, 2013 at 4:44 pm
    ExciteBiker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Ramani Ayer was once able to bring sufficient clarity to this issue. Perhaps he will again attempt to do so with our current Congress.

  • January 18, 2013 at 5:09 pm
    jw says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    With GL it is about defense not negligence. Every event domestic or foreign brings out the law suits. When you advise on liability never get into the “would you be negligent” argument talk the defense benefit.

  • January 20, 2013 at 11:47 am
    ivan sysanin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 4

    I was tortured for almost 3 years by the FBI and their friends only
    because 85 years old man, Roland Sibens(chicago) convinced them that I
    am a terrorist. I was tortured for working on my prosthetic legs in
    the basement. I done absolutely nothing illegal or wrong. They thought
    that in theory it is possible to hide bomb in them. They saw an
    opportunity to get famous, so they were trying to torture me till I
    sign their insane story. They tortured me using more than 100
    different torturing methods and trust to me waterboarding is not how
    they torture nowadays. I dont know where to find justice.

    I think that after 9/11 things got out of control. Freedom fighters
    became tyrants. In 1945, most Germans had an opportunity to learn about Nazis death
    camps. I hope that one day American citizens will get chance to learn about people
    like me, who were tortured with no reason for years.

  • January 24, 2013 at 9:18 am
    Conservative, Underwriter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    “Opponents also maintain that taxpayers should not be responsible for paying insurance losses on private property.”

    This comment truly struck me as a meritless defense; taxpayers are responsible for much more unworthy expenses than supporting our country in the fight against terrorism…

    • January 24, 2013 at 9:41 am
      Dave says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Conservative, I understand the argument about the government being less obtrusive and not being involved with this backstop. But I also accept the counter-argument that the number 1 most important duty of any government is to protect it’s citizens from internal and external strife. And any failure to do so does involve at least some governmental responsibility. How much responsibility can be debated. But some responsibility is warranted in my opinion.

      • January 24, 2013 at 11:55 am
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 0

        Dave, the military oath is to protect the United States from enemies, foreign and domestic. We seem to have more domestic enemies than foreign now. We have allowed Muslims to come in, build Mosques, preach hatred and have sleeper cells waiting for the word to attack this country. Terrorism is here to stay whether we like it or not. If Terrorism coverage goes away without a Federal backup and we have another event like a 9/11 or a nuke being set off in a major city, this country will be finished. There is not enough money in the world to take care of that kind of loss and the government is broke anyway. I wonder how much money has been paid in for Terrorism coverage in the past 12 years. Is that in the companies coffers or was it sent to the FEDS to squirrel away for the next event?

        • March 6, 2013 at 4:54 pm
          Haggar the Horrible says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Company coffers. TRIPRA is not a government insurance pool, as it is in other countries. Many companies still account for TRIPRA premium as property/all risk, rather than using it to help develop standalone Terrorism products.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features