I can’t let a “terrorism” article go by without jumping (back) on my soapbox to say that it is confusing and almost pointless to consider the motivations of attackers in determining whether insurance coverage should apply in the wake of an attack. In this case, I’m happy to leave the heavy lifting of coverage analysis in the capable hands of Chis Boggs. I state only that we don’t know and can never really know the true motivations of the Nashville bomber, the Las Vegas shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter, and other assailants.
For purposes of public safety, we have to try to understand what prompts individuals to attack. But for purposes of property insurance coverage, what matters is the frequency and severity of damage caused intentionally, for whatever reason. Private insurance policies and public risk-sharing programs should be structured on that basis, without regard to the motivations of perpetrators.
I can’t let a “terrorism” article go by without jumping (back) on my soapbox to say that it is confusing and almost pointless to consider the motivations of attackers in determining whether insurance coverage should apply in the wake of an attack. In this case, I’m happy to leave the heavy lifting of coverage analysis in the capable hands of Chis Boggs. I state only that we don’t know and can never really know the true motivations of the Nashville bomber, the Las Vegas shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter, and other assailants.
For purposes of public safety, we have to try to understand what prompts individuals to attack. But for purposes of property insurance coverage, what matters is the frequency and severity of damage caused intentionally, for whatever reason. Private insurance policies and public risk-sharing programs should be structured on that basis, without regard to the motivations of perpetrators.