This why I tell my clients to buy the coverage if it is affordable to them, just in case some big mouth politician declares a specific act as terrorism.
The business income interption was caused by an ordinance of law, the closing of a street due to the criminal investigation, not the actual explosion. The physical loss to property was caused by the explosion (potential terrorist attack). This was domestic violance as the bomber with the white hat was an american citizen. TRIA is for Bin Laden style terrorism. This will most likely be settled by the courts like the World Trade Center claim.
We didn’t have terrorism exclusions during the World Trade Center claim. 9/11 was the catalyst for terrorism exclusions and TRIA coverage. This was not an ordinance or law (which is typically excluded unless bought back,) but by civil authority, which typically has a 72 hour waiting period. It doesn’t look good for these people regardless of whether they purchased terrorism coverage or not.
If this act doesn’t qualify as terrorism, what would? I have no sympathy for the argument that definitions be applied arbitrarily just so burdens can be shifted to insurance companies.
With the loss of life and limbs, it’s very likely this is over the $5M mark. But again, it has to be declared as such by 3 government officials, none of which are the President. So don’t blame Obama. He already called it a terrorist act.
This why I tell my clients to buy the coverage if it is affordable to them, just in case some big mouth politician declares a specific act as terrorism.
This should be a decision based on facts, not how to get the most insurance dollars for businesses (votes).
The business income interption was caused by an ordinance of law, the closing of a street due to the criminal investigation, not the actual explosion. The physical loss to property was caused by the explosion (potential terrorist attack). This was domestic violance as the bomber with the white hat was an american citizen. TRIA is for Bin Laden style terrorism. This will most likely be settled by the courts like the World Trade Center claim.
We didn’t have terrorism exclusions during the World Trade Center claim. 9/11 was the catalyst for terrorism exclusions and TRIA coverage. This was not an ordinance or law (which is typically excluded unless bought back,) but by civil authority, which typically has a 72 hour waiting period. It doesn’t look good for these people regardless of whether they purchased terrorism coverage or not.
An “Act of Terrorism” was redefined in 2010 to include both domestic and foreign terrorism.
If this act doesn’t qualify as terrorism, what would? I have no sympathy for the argument that definitions be applied arbitrarily just so burdens can be shifted to insurance companies.
I wrote a blog post on this subject a few weeks ago — see http://insurancegeek.typepad.com/ask_tim/2013/04/boston-bombing-terrorism.html. If P&C losses from the explosions are under $5 million, this cannot be certified as an act of terrorism for insurance purposes.
With the loss of life and limbs, it’s very likely this is over the $5M mark. But again, it has to be declared as such by 3 government officials, none of which are the President. So don’t blame Obama. He already called it a terrorist act.