1) Terrorism is an excluded coverage under most BOP and commercial policies unless the insured opted to by buy-back coverage (via TRIA or some other endorsement)
2) If the insured did purchase coverage, most of the coverage forms I’ve seen have the following exclusion:
“c. The “terrorism” is carried out by means of the dispersal or application of pathogenic or poisonous biological or chemical materials;
or
d. Pathogenic or poisonous biological or chemical materials are released, and it appears that one purpose of the “terrorism” was to release such materials;
3) actually proving that it was a terroristic act in the first place.
Now admittedly there have been the occasional idiot that goes into the produce section of a store and coughs on the vegetables, and the various hate groups. But unless you can directly link an infection to one of these types, good luck.
First, they’d have to actually have terrorism coverage, then they’d need a covered peril.
I’d be more concerned about someone believing they have no business income coverage for a pandemic, but know they do for a fire, so they try to burn the place down thinking they’re get coverage that way but not realizing that they have little or no “business income.”
When the pols decide to shift cost to insurance and then BI is excluded for all losses here after, what will be the next source of “other peoples money”?
What John Q Public does not pay attention to is the fact that the insurance industry is fighting on the front lines for government assistance for small businesses affected by Covid19 and their loss of business income. Pandemics were never intended to be covered. These individual lawsuits will tie up the court systems for years and, if by chance one should win, it will change the insurance industry as we know it. Many companies would not be able to keep the surplus that they are required by States to have in order to keep their companies open and would be placed in liquidation. A multitude of companies would go under. This is an unprecedented pandemic that is affecting, I would guess, at least 80% of all businesses. Before taking up a lawsuit and changing insurance as we know it think about the fact that it is not only affecting you, it is affecting most of the U.S. and the world.
If she just opened and didn’t have a lot of sales, her loss of income for a ‘covered’ cause of loss would be calculated on those recent low earnings, not on her thoughts of what she could have made if she had not closed. They won’t consider your ‘Hopeful’ Projected Earnings. Not to mention the Civil Authority. They act as if there does not need to be a covered cause of loss and that ANY Civil Authority reason is covered. And Bugs? Did this lawyer not read a standard policy form? Also Excluded. I wish there was coverage written into the policy and that PREMIUMS were collected. But such is not the case. Rather than FORCE coverage, they should be tapping into slush funds and kindly asking the insurers to process the claims and the government will foot the bill. There’s plenty of Slushie money to go around.
There is a risk in opening and running a business. Sometimes your business idea won’t be very good and you will not get the sales you thought you’d get and you have to shut down. This happens to the overwhelming majority of small businesses in the US. And for those business’ smart enough to buy good insurance coverage, you are provided the actual policy which clearly lists what is and is not covered. The BI exclusions are easily determined by actually reading the policy, which most people fail to do. But your failure to read and understand a policy doesn’t make coverage appear when it’s not spelled out. Hard to have much sympathy.
I see attorney’s getting even richer off this virus. The hysteria connected with COVID-19 is disturbing but that’s another discussion.
The attitude of people in the US suing because someone, other than them, has to be responsible. We die, we suffer hardship, we sue, because no one is supposed to really die or have any hardship in life. It’s shameful
If, by hysteria, you mean the panic buying, I hear you. Had it been appropriately handled from the onslaught, rather than how this administration handled it, I know we all know we’d be in a much better place without all that type of hysteria. Instead, the lies led to a snowballing effect of various forms of panic, accompanied by a media who showcased the panic, and we are now all at home watching Tiger King. You are undoubtedly concerned about this, though, correct?
This is definitely a dangerous moment for P&C companies and agents. Litigation outcomes in the biggest states in the US like CA, NY, NJ and especially FL are driven almost 100% by sentiment. That emotional approach to plaintiff lawsuits has taken over many judges as well as juries. In this current situation, a sobbing, sad and very sympathetic small business owner plaintiff can open the literal flood gates of judgments against carriers (and agents). As we have seen many times, once liberalizing precedents atre set, they generally become permanent. No matter that there was 100 years of legally solid precedents about something as basic as policy language. This overturning emotional force is so strong, it’s a wonder that insurance carriers just don’t “whatever you feel like” in their coverage forms.
We live in a generation of bailouts. At every turn, once proud “rugged Individuals” have devolved into weeping entitled adolescents. We live in a world of dependent grasshoppers and there are no ants to be found.
After the Saudi funded hijackers attacked our country on 9-11, our president repeatedly called the attacks an act of war. Nevertheless, the P/C carriers voluntarily decided to waive their “war” exclusions and pay both property and liability claims presented. Why should the current situation differ?
Good point, Boondoggle. 9/11 killed 2,753 and the Trumponavirus has killed over 16,600. New York has burial pits as a result of this botched response. He loves to put his name on things and his name deserves to hang squarely over that mass grave site. I am curious to see what carriers do in light of this and then, how does the market respond in general. I see the hard market staying for some time now. Q1 results have to be largely suffering.
Boonedoggle – The 9/11 claims were large, but manageable from a financial standpoint. Current situation is quite different. The insurance industry has about $800 billion in surplus. The biz interruption claims are estimated to be $300 billion per month. Yes, per month. If the industry paid claims that are clearly excluded, the insurance industry would cease to exist in less than 3 months.
Another pathetic Democrat giveaway! Democrats want to violate basic contract law at the expense of insurance carriers (and ultimately, the insurance consumer).
If it’s explicitly excluded , there’s no coverage. If it it’s specifically covered, then insurers must pay. If consumers didn’t buy this coverage, that’s their problem.
Any attempts to provide retroactive coverage will ultimately be defeated in court.
I know how to get this covered: Declare it an act of terrorism. Which they won’t.
1) Terrorism is an excluded coverage under most BOP and commercial policies unless the insured opted to by buy-back coverage (via TRIA or some other endorsement)
2) If the insured did purchase coverage, most of the coverage forms I’ve seen have the following exclusion:
“c. The “terrorism” is carried out by means of the dispersal or application of pathogenic or poisonous biological or chemical materials;
or
d. Pathogenic or poisonous biological or chemical materials are released, and it appears that one purpose of the “terrorism” was to release such materials;
3) actually proving that it was a terroristic act in the first place.
Now admittedly there have been the occasional idiot that goes into the produce section of a store and coughs on the vegetables, and the various hate groups. But unless you can directly link an infection to one of these types, good luck.
First, they’d have to actually have terrorism coverage, then they’d need a covered peril.
I’d be more concerned about someone believing they have no business income coverage for a pandemic, but know they do for a fire, so they try to burn the place down thinking they’re get coverage that way but not realizing that they have little or no “business income.”
Insurance doesn’t cover everything, even if you think it does.
When the pols decide to shift cost to insurance and then BI is excluded for all losses here after, what will be the next source of “other peoples money”?
What John Q Public does not pay attention to is the fact that the insurance industry is fighting on the front lines for government assistance for small businesses affected by Covid19 and their loss of business income. Pandemics were never intended to be covered. These individual lawsuits will tie up the court systems for years and, if by chance one should win, it will change the insurance industry as we know it. Many companies would not be able to keep the surplus that they are required by States to have in order to keep their companies open and would be placed in liquidation. A multitude of companies would go under. This is an unprecedented pandemic that is affecting, I would guess, at least 80% of all businesses. Before taking up a lawsuit and changing insurance as we know it think about the fact that it is not only affecting you, it is affecting most of the U.S. and the world.
If she just opened and didn’t have a lot of sales, her loss of income for a ‘covered’ cause of loss would be calculated on those recent low earnings, not on her thoughts of what she could have made if she had not closed. They won’t consider your ‘Hopeful’ Projected Earnings. Not to mention the Civil Authority. They act as if there does not need to be a covered cause of loss and that ANY Civil Authority reason is covered. And Bugs? Did this lawyer not read a standard policy form? Also Excluded. I wish there was coverage written into the policy and that PREMIUMS were collected. But such is not the case. Rather than FORCE coverage, they should be tapping into slush funds and kindly asking the insurers to process the claims and the government will foot the bill. There’s plenty of Slushie money to go around.
None of the business interruption has been caused by a pandemic. It has been caused by state governors issuing stay at home orders.
There is a risk in opening and running a business. Sometimes your business idea won’t be very good and you will not get the sales you thought you’d get and you have to shut down. This happens to the overwhelming majority of small businesses in the US. And for those business’ smart enough to buy good insurance coverage, you are provided the actual policy which clearly lists what is and is not covered. The BI exclusions are easily determined by actually reading the policy, which most people fail to do. But your failure to read and understand a policy doesn’t make coverage appear when it’s not spelled out. Hard to have much sympathy.
I see attorney’s getting even richer off this virus. The hysteria connected with COVID-19 is disturbing but that’s another discussion.
The attitude of people in the US suing because someone, other than them, has to be responsible. We die, we suffer hardship, we sue, because no one is supposed to really die or have any hardship in life. It’s shameful
If, by hysteria, you mean the panic buying, I hear you. Had it been appropriately handled from the onslaught, rather than how this administration handled it, I know we all know we’d be in a much better place without all that type of hysteria. Instead, the lies led to a snowballing effect of various forms of panic, accompanied by a media who showcased the panic, and we are now all at home watching Tiger King. You are undoubtedly concerned about this, though, correct?
This is definitely a dangerous moment for P&C companies and agents. Litigation outcomes in the biggest states in the US like CA, NY, NJ and especially FL are driven almost 100% by sentiment. That emotional approach to plaintiff lawsuits has taken over many judges as well as juries. In this current situation, a sobbing, sad and very sympathetic small business owner plaintiff can open the literal flood gates of judgments against carriers (and agents). As we have seen many times, once liberalizing precedents atre set, they generally become permanent. No matter that there was 100 years of legally solid precedents about something as basic as policy language. This overturning emotional force is so strong, it’s a wonder that insurance carriers just don’t “whatever you feel like” in their coverage forms.
We live in a generation of bailouts. At every turn, once proud “rugged Individuals” have devolved into weeping entitled adolescents. We live in a world of dependent grasshoppers and there are no ants to be found.
After the Saudi funded hijackers attacked our country on 9-11, our president repeatedly called the attacks an act of war. Nevertheless, the P/C carriers voluntarily decided to waive their “war” exclusions and pay both property and liability claims presented. Why should the current situation differ?
Good point, Boondoggle. 9/11 killed 2,753 and the Trumponavirus has killed over 16,600. New York has burial pits as a result of this botched response. He loves to put his name on things and his name deserves to hang squarely over that mass grave site. I am curious to see what carriers do in light of this and then, how does the market respond in general. I see the hard market staying for some time now. Q1 results have to be largely suffering.
Boonedoggle – The 9/11 claims were large, but manageable from a financial standpoint. Current situation is quite different. The insurance industry has about $800 billion in surplus. The biz interruption claims are estimated to be $300 billion per month. Yes, per month. If the industry paid claims that are clearly excluded, the insurance industry would cease to exist in less than 3 months.
Another pathetic Democrat giveaway! Democrats want to violate basic contract law at the expense of insurance carriers (and ultimately, the insurance consumer).
If it’s explicitly excluded , there’s no coverage. If it it’s specifically covered, then insurers must pay. If consumers didn’t buy this coverage, that’s their problem.
Any attempts to provide retroactive coverage will ultimately be defeated in court.
Umm- last time I checked Trump was a Republican.. he has several times said insurers should just pay up