I am sure they felt that a terrorism exclusion might be used against them, but I agree with you, it should be covered under “other an collision” as the damage happened in the line of duty trying to apprehend the terrorist and not directly from the act of terrorism itself. Good call on the insurance companies part.
Why wouldn’t they cover it? It’s all other than collision.
I am sure they felt that a terrorism exclusion might be used against them, but I agree with you, it should be covered under “other an collision” as the damage happened in the line of duty trying to apprehend the terrorist and not directly from the act of terrorism itself. Good call on the insurance companies part.