Let’s save reading time: the exclusion would deny coverage for property damage if the government action caused the damage.
The name of the Act does not necessarily describe the looting going on, which is random, disorganized, and not intended to overthrow the government (ie. NOT an insurrection).
The thought that exercising the “Insurrection Act” would cause exclusions of coverage is laughable. This is likely the writer’s lame attempt to express more TDS. Nothing more.
Craig- obvious by the writers first statement….. “rocks being thrown”. Maybe if he had blamed the riots on a movie the writer would have been a little kinder.
Great analysis. I seemed to have missed the other commenter’s sense that author was saying the exclusion would apply and that he suffers from TDS. I must not be a deep thinker.
I find the “rocks being thrown by President Trump” statement extremely offensive and frankly you should keep your snide diatribe out of professional publications.
Well- all this does is give the insurance companies and attorneys something to fight about when insurance won’t cover a claim related to this- it’s just opening up a huge can of worms-
I find it amazing that political anger turns otherwise intelligent people stupid. Evidently the anger caused by the first sentence blinded some to the fact that the author answered the question in the second paragraph and simply used the remainder to enumerate the reasoning. If you’ve ever had to fight a claims adjuster, you can’t say, “Because I said so.”
Also, being offended is a personal choice. You can choose to be offended or not be. If you are offended by what someone writes, you really need to toughen up and grow up. Life isn’t about you and your feelings. Adulthood allows for opposing views.
Lastly, the author’s political stance is not really relevant. However, because I happen to know the author personally, I can assure you his conservatism would make most of you look like socialist.
I have watched him take on Trump’s statements about insurance (in particular business income) and he has been asked to address coverage questions because of things Trump says for political purposes. You don’t have to agree with everything the President says to support the President. And I can assure you, he supports Trump.
So, feel free to get angry or be offended, but make sure you are angry and offended over the right things.
Insgeek- 100% “offended” is in the eye of the beholder. I heard that crap at my first diversity training meeting with Allstate. Even when I heard it in 1995, I thought what a load of bunk. I sat there and said to myself, what’s offensive to some will not be to others. So who gets to write the big book of offensive terms we go by? Well here we are, the book gets thicker every day. Free speech is dead. So much so, this comment may not be on here long.
InsGeek is never offended. That is why an article in an insurance magazine that starts with a comment about President Obama trying to quell civil violence that started with “Rocks being thrown by President Obama . . .” wouldn’t offend InsGeek at all. But of course it wouldn’t.
Actually, no it wouldn’t offend me. But I appreciate your attempt to refocus the discussion. Don’t be so blinded by political hatred that it affects your overall intelligence.
Congratulations to the author for starting a good old fashion discussion where reasonable people can debate an issue. I am only sorry that there are very few reasonable people left to have such a discussion. As to being offended, I am offended that so many people are offended by free speech. If a person’s constitutional right to express an opinion or discuss an issue is offensive, then the offended should find a fascist country where dissent is not allowed, even the offended’s own being offended. We need more adults in the room so issues can be analyzed rationally and without temper tantrums.
leaving the other comments aside, I found the article interesting; I knew that “riot and civil commotion” were generally covered as per the industry standard, but I hadn’t given any thought to how recent government action could come into play
I have very much enjoyed reading the comments. They give me a needed smile throughout my day. Just one quick FYI, n the event you didn’t notice it, my email is at the bottom of the article, so if you truly have an issue with what or how I said something or you were truly offended by something I wrote, I would very much appreciate your contacting me directly. Then we can have a professional conversation. I think it would be fun.
Let’s save reading time: the exclusion would deny coverage for property damage if the government action caused the damage.
The name of the Act does not necessarily describe the looting going on, which is random, disorganized, and not intended to overthrow the government (ie. NOT an insurrection).
The thought that exercising the “Insurrection Act” would cause exclusions of coverage is laughable. This is likely the writer’s lame attempt to express more TDS. Nothing more.
Craig- obvious by the writers first statement….. “rocks being thrown”. Maybe if he had blamed the riots on a movie the writer would have been a little kinder.
Great analysis. I seemed to have missed the other commenter’s sense that author was saying the exclusion would apply and that he suffers from TDS. I must not be a deep thinker.
Why spend 10 paragraphs on this non-issue when one paragraph would do? In fact, why publish this at all? “Rocks being thrown . . .”
Trump is able to invoke TIA1807, thus anyone who publishes such an article must be anti-Trump. No deep thinking is required to understand that point.
I find the “rocks being thrown by President Trump” statement extremely offensive and frankly you should keep your snide diatribe out of professional publications.
Well- all this does is give the insurance companies and attorneys something to fight about when insurance won’t cover a claim related to this- it’s just opening up a huge can of worms-
I find it amazing that political anger turns otherwise intelligent people stupid. Evidently the anger caused by the first sentence blinded some to the fact that the author answered the question in the second paragraph and simply used the remainder to enumerate the reasoning. If you’ve ever had to fight a claims adjuster, you can’t say, “Because I said so.”
Also, being offended is a personal choice. You can choose to be offended or not be. If you are offended by what someone writes, you really need to toughen up and grow up. Life isn’t about you and your feelings. Adulthood allows for opposing views.
Lastly, the author’s political stance is not really relevant. However, because I happen to know the author personally, I can assure you his conservatism would make most of you look like socialist.
I have watched him take on Trump’s statements about insurance (in particular business income) and he has been asked to address coverage questions because of things Trump says for political purposes. You don’t have to agree with everything the President says to support the President. And I can assure you, he supports Trump.
So, feel free to get angry or be offended, but make sure you are angry and offended over the right things.
Insgeek- 100% “offended” is in the eye of the beholder. I heard that crap at my first diversity training meeting with Allstate. Even when I heard it in 1995, I thought what a load of bunk. I sat there and said to myself, what’s offensive to some will not be to others. So who gets to write the big book of offensive terms we go by? Well here we are, the book gets thicker every day. Free speech is dead. So much so, this comment may not be on here long.
InsGeek is never offended. That is why an article in an insurance magazine that starts with a comment about President Obama trying to quell civil violence that started with “Rocks being thrown by President Obama . . .” wouldn’t offend InsGeek at all. But of course it wouldn’t.
Actually, no it wouldn’t offend me. But I appreciate your attempt to refocus the discussion. Don’t be so blinded by political hatred that it affects your overall intelligence.
Don’t be so naive that you take “news” articles seriously when they are obviously just political diatribes.
Congratulations to the author for starting a good old fashion discussion where reasonable people can debate an issue. I am only sorry that there are very few reasonable people left to have such a discussion. As to being offended, I am offended that so many people are offended by free speech. If a person’s constitutional right to express an opinion or discuss an issue is offensive, then the offended should find a fascist country where dissent is not allowed, even the offended’s own being offended. We need more adults in the room so issues can be analyzed rationally and without temper tantrums.
leaving the other comments aside, I found the article interesting; I knew that “riot and civil commotion” were generally covered as per the industry standard, but I hadn’t given any thought to how recent government action could come into play
I have very much enjoyed reading the comments. They give me a needed smile throughout my day. Just one quick FYI, n the event you didn’t notice it, my email is at the bottom of the article, so if you truly have an issue with what or how I said something or you were truly offended by something I wrote, I would very much appreciate your contacting me directly. Then we can have a professional conversation. I think it would be fun.
Hope to talk with you soon.