It would not end it in those states, like New York, whose SFP obviously never contemplated it, and for whom no TRIA (or terrorism – see Connecticut) exception was ever passed.
All in all, an extension will probably pass on December 22, 2014.
But not in those states that require terrorism be provided, since it was never excluded in original SFP, and who haven’t enacted an exception.
In those states, carriers will be either not writing, or covering terrorism like a good Tatale. And if they were so foolish as to issue a policy having gotten a terrorism rejection (or TRIA rejection) from an insured, then they will have the combined joy of having gotten no premium (and not being covered by the TRIA backstop) for those states, and still paying out in a coverage lawsuit.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It would not end it in those states, like New York, whose SFP obviously never contemplated it, and for whom no TRIA (or terrorism – see Connecticut) exception was ever passed.
All in all, an extension will probably pass on December 22, 2014.
But not in those states that require terrorism be provided, since it was never excluded in original SFP, and who haven’t enacted an exception.
In those states, carriers will be either not writing, or covering terrorism like a good Tatale. And if they were so foolish as to issue a policy having gotten a terrorism rejection (or TRIA rejection) from an insured, then they will have the combined joy of having gotten no premium (and not being covered by the TRIA backstop) for those states, and still paying out in a coverage lawsuit.
Anyone disagree?