The federal government is charged with the security of our nation and has the responsibility to protect the citizens and property of our nation from attack by “all enemies, foreign and domestic”.
It’s not “if” we will experience an attack using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, but “when”. And such attacks will render larger geographical areas of our nation “useless” for years………the private insurance industry cannot possibly cover the losses.
By whatever mechanism, the federal government needs to step forward “before the fact” and assume the liability. Increased taxes,Yes. But think about this happening with nothing in place……….economic chaos !!!!!!!!!!
I usually don’t find myself agreeing with Mrs Clinton or Mr Schumer very often, but they are right on this one. Given the potential economic calamity that could arise from uninsured or underinsured terrorist-related claims, TRIA needs to remain in place. Improve it, yes, but in this day and age, TRIA is a critical to maintianing the stability of the insurance industry and the US economy.
Let’s see, if I remember correctly from INS 101 – the definition of insurance is that it is an activity involving prediction of losses, voluntary collection of funds from all participating entities and payment of all or part of those funds collected to risks suffering losses stipulated in the insuring agreement. Spreading of risk amongst many to make an injured party whole.
Hmmm, can we sufficiently predict terrorist acts – No. Can we voluntarily collect funds – NO. Can we adequately spread the risk without bankrupting the entire industry – Maybe but probably No.
There’s a reason that historically terrorism, war and other hazards were not commercially insurable. Can’t predict and little frequency but extreme severity.
Insurance is a business, not a social program to cure all ills. It’s time for these do nothing politicians to step up to the plate and stop trying to make the insurance industry into a marxist operation.
I’ve worked on hundreds of accounts, and only a handful have requested terrorism coverage. The commission on these few accounts does not begin to cover the expense of offering this coverage. I work for a large wholesaler, and have underwriting authority with 9 carriers. On every renewal and new business submission I quote terrorism and send out the carrier specific form that must be completed to show acceptance or rejection. Then I must follow-up to make certain the form is completed in its entirety and returned. TRIA is the bane of my existence!
I have to agree with Jack King – I rarely find myself supporting the attitudes or actions of Mrs Clinton Or Mr. Schumer but on this one I feel they are right.
I hope some safety net is provided for the businesses that really do require this catastrophic coverage before the economy is adversely affected.
It’s always amazing and unfortunate to see an economic issue of this magnitude turned into a political football by our two political parties.As I read the report, it is only a matter of time before a compromise (TRIA Light)is reached and everyone claims credit for the victory.In the meantime, we can enjoy the posturing that will continue well beyond the World Series which btw won’t be played in New York!
If there is ever an incident covered by TRIA I bet Chuckie and Hil will introduce legislation to retro-actively cover the 99% of insureds who have opted to reject the coverage. They must protect those who cannot think for themselves.
Jimbo is right on with his statements. We cannot expect our industry to endure the financial outcome of the political actions of the USA or any other country. It’s up to our gov’t. to bear the expense brought about by an attack or whatever means are employed against us. To expect the insurance industry to finance the recovery is simply not realistic.
The federal government is charged with the security of our nation and has the responsibility to protect the citizens and property of our nation from attack by “all enemies, foreign and domestic”.
It’s not “if” we will experience an attack using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, but “when”. And such attacks will render larger geographical areas of our nation “useless” for years………the private insurance industry cannot possibly cover the losses.
By whatever mechanism, the federal government needs to step forward “before the fact” and assume the liability. Increased taxes,Yes. But think about this happening with nothing in place……….economic chaos !!!!!!!!!!
I usually don’t find myself agreeing with Mrs Clinton or Mr Schumer very often, but they are right on this one. Given the potential economic calamity that could arise from uninsured or underinsured terrorist-related claims, TRIA needs to remain in place. Improve it, yes, but in this day and age, TRIA is a critical to maintianing the stability of the insurance industry and the US economy.
Let’s see, if I remember correctly from INS 101 – the definition of insurance is that it is an activity involving prediction of losses, voluntary collection of funds from all participating entities and payment of all or part of those funds collected to risks suffering losses stipulated in the insuring agreement. Spreading of risk amongst many to make an injured party whole.
Hmmm, can we sufficiently predict terrorist acts – No. Can we voluntarily collect funds – NO. Can we adequately spread the risk without bankrupting the entire industry – Maybe but probably No.
There’s a reason that historically terrorism, war and other hazards were not commercially insurable. Can’t predict and little frequency but extreme severity.
Insurance is a business, not a social program to cure all ills. It’s time for these do nothing politicians to step up to the plate and stop trying to make the insurance industry into a marxist operation.
I’ve worked on hundreds of accounts, and only a handful have requested terrorism coverage. The commission on these few accounts does not begin to cover the expense of offering this coverage. I work for a large wholesaler, and have underwriting authority with 9 carriers. On every renewal and new business submission I quote terrorism and send out the carrier specific form that must be completed to show acceptance or rejection. Then I must follow-up to make certain the form is completed in its entirety and returned. TRIA is the bane of my existence!
I have to agree with Jack King – I rarely find myself supporting the attitudes or actions of Mrs Clinton Or Mr. Schumer but on this one I feel they are right.
I hope some safety net is provided for the businesses that really do require this catastrophic coverage before the economy is adversely affected.
It’s always amazing and unfortunate to see an economic issue of this magnitude turned into a political football by our two political parties.As I read the report, it is only a matter of time before a compromise (TRIA Light)is reached and everyone claims credit for the victory.In the meantime, we can enjoy the posturing that will continue well beyond the World Series which btw won’t be played in New York!
If there is ever an incident covered by TRIA I bet Chuckie and Hil will introduce legislation to retro-actively cover the 99% of insureds who have opted to reject the coverage. They must protect those who cannot think for themselves.
Jimbo is right on with his statements. We cannot expect our industry to endure the financial outcome of the political actions of the USA or any other country. It’s up to our gov’t. to bear the expense brought about by an attack or whatever means are employed against us. To expect the insurance industry to finance the recovery is simply not realistic.