Trump Tells Insurers to Pay Virus Claims If Pandemics Not Excluded

By | April 14, 2020

  • April 14, 2020 at 12:14 pm
    Rosenblatt says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 58
    Thumb down 7

    “I don’t see pandemic mentioned. Now, in some cases it is; it’s an exclusion. But in a lot of cases I don’t see it. I don’t see reference that they don’t want to pay up.”

    So he doesn’t see it mentioned
    But he does see it excluded.
    So it is mentioned.
    And if it’s excluded, that’s the reference that it won’t be paid,

    Can he be any more confusing?

    • April 14, 2020 at 8:35 pm
      MarkK. says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 19
      Thumb down 0

      The word ‘Pandemic” is not listed but the word virus is very clearly an exclusion. ISO has required the exclusion for at least the last ten years. It is not an optional exclusion in standard policies, it is a required exclusion. It couldn’t be more clear that viruses are excluded.

  • April 14, 2020 at 12:19 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 55
    Thumb down 55

    Hey, Tramp, just because you want something doesn’t mean you get it. You don’t get to grab Trumponavirus by the _ussy. You completely mishandled this from the get-go and now you are in panic mode. It shows. And, I also don’t believe you can read any language all that well. I’ve seen you stumble over simple grammar in your press conferences. You also have the vocabulary of a 5th grader.

  • April 14, 2020 at 12:54 pm
    CL PM says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 42
    Thumb down 3

    I agree his language is confusing. I’d hate to be a stenographer trying to follow him. He rarely finishes a sentence before starting the next one, which he doesn’t finish before going to the next one. But on this one, I can decipher that he is saying “If it is not excluded, then pay. If it is excluded, then OK.” No problem, except plaintiff attorneys are not going to agree on what the exclusions say. They have to fight the language to earn their fees. Should not be unexpected by anyone. My company uses straight ISO language for our BOP. The virus exclusion seems very clear to me so I don’t see us having to pay Biz Income losses.

    • April 21, 2020 at 10:31 pm
      Janna says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Why would it ever even get to that? Business interruption coverage specifically requires physical loss of or damage to property as the coverage trigger. Even if there were no virus exclusion (and not *all* policies have those), there’s no coverage.

      • April 27, 2020 at 9:16 am
        CL PM says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        I hear ya, but plaintiff attorneys are arguing the terms “physical loss of or damage to property” are not defined and thus want courts to define those terms as favorable to the plaintiff as possible. It is their job to do that, but this one seems out of bounds to me. So I am glad our policy has the virus exclusion on top of the physical damage language to make it very clear there is no coverage.

  • April 14, 2020 at 1:24 pm
    TonyS says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 46
    Thumb down 1

    Let’s just assume that somehow coronavirus losses become covered under property policies. This would result in the insolvency of numerous insurers, as the intent to cover these types of losses was never planned, and the global nature of the disease means absolutely everyone who has property insurance will be able to submit claims for damages reaching up into the potential trillions of dollars. So, even if Trump’s dreams come true, it will likely mean the end of the property insurance market for some time to come. If so, the government would have to bail out insurers for the billions and trillions of dollars they had to pay to settle claims, and this whole thing would stink even further to high heaven then it already does.

    • April 14, 2020 at 3:55 pm
      Tiger88 says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 3

      Exactly the point we have come to in this crisis: There is lots of lost income and private insurers cannot pay it without insolvency. So, lets stipulate the federal government will have to print more money (since the dollar is heading towards being pretty worthless if you can just magically pull $2 trillion out of the air) and cover these losses. So we should get on with it already. Congress knew there is no coverage under almost any business income form so they should have placed the pass through/subsidy in the first relief package…or the second but it looks like they will have to do a third. One more month of this will see the bankruptcy of most restaurants, hotels, theme parks, airlines, cruise lines and on and on. So, the government is going to have to pay these losses or live with the resulting economic collapse. Fooling around with litigation is just going to be unproductive and prolong the crisis.

      • April 19, 2020 at 6:50 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 9

        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Re-posted:

        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 14

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        Insolvencies will be abated by subrogation rights against China. Liquidity prior to actual receipt of reimbursement of claims paid will be provided by the Federal governments of EACH nation injured by China’s heinous actions.
        Reply

        • April 23, 2020 at 4:07 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          You were down voted because it’s ridiculous to think a sovereign nation could be forced to pay the P&C industry for business interruption losses.

    • April 15, 2020 at 9:25 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 15

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • April 15, 2020 at 10:09 am
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 13
        Thumb down 4

        This is a joke comment, right? You don’t actually believe that will happen, do you?

        • April 15, 2020 at 11:31 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 1

          That is not an answer.

          You don’t actually believe that will happen, do you?

      • April 15, 2020 at 10:14 am
        Tiger88 says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 22
        Thumb down 1

        Subro against China? That didn’t work on the drywall fiasco so I would not be hopeful that we have any chance of recovering any $

        • April 19, 2020 at 6:52 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 4

          Read the title of this bill:

          https://crenshaw.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=267

          • April 19, 2020 at 6:56 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 7

            I think this provides a good summary for those who refuse to open weblinks to a Conservative Congressman’s page…

            This legislation is modeled after the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which 97 members of the Senate voted in favor of in 2016.

            The bill makes clear that covering up the virus and causing it to spread faster or further than it otherwise would have can be considered a tortious act.

            The bill gives the United States a powerful tool to get China to pay for the damage it has caused: If the United States and China come to an agreement to settle the claims, then the private suits could be dismissed. In other words, China can take responsibility and agree to pay for the damage it has caused, or it can face potentially millions of claims in federal court.

          • April 22, 2020 at 11:47 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            You forgot to write this part “[the Senator & Congressman] introduced legislation….”

            You’re talking about this like it’s currently law and possible to subro against China.

            It is not law.

            When you said “will be abated by subrogation rights against China”

            you should have said

            “could possibly be abated if the legislation introduced 4/16/2020 is voted on and approved”

            Currently we can’t subro against China.

            Your link proves that.

      • April 20, 2020 at 11:38 am
        JZ says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 1

        You do realize that congress knew about the virus as of January 26th? The intelligence community advised congress how bad this virus could be and yet we failed to do anything until March 15th. This law suit will not hold up in a court of law. You’re ideological wet dream will go nowhere.

      • April 21, 2020 at 6:42 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 4

        Re-posted:

        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 14

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        Insolvencies will be abated by subrogation rights against China. Liquidity prior to actual receipt of reimbursement of claims paid will be provided by the Federal governments of EACH nation injured by China’s heinous actions.
        Reply

  • April 14, 2020 at 2:46 pm
    Craig Winston Cornell says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 6

    A serious point in this discussion: exclusionary language usually centers around an ‘ordinance or law’.

    Much of the shutdown is by order of the governor of the state where you live. Which means it is neither an ordinance nor law which would have been written and approved by legislatures.

    Not sure how far this argument goes, but it is true. (Many civil libertarians argue that if the shutdown lasted much longer, lawsuits would arise challenging any state governor’s ability to curtail rights of citizens protected by the Constitution. Such as the freedom to assembly.)

  • April 14, 2020 at 2:49 pm
    Jon says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 21
    Thumb down 20

    A shutdown by the state you live in, except 46 states have shutdowns in effect. The federal government is dragging their feet because our leader is incompetent, but this isn’t a 1 or 2 state issue. Civil libertarians can argue, but 46 states are doing it, they’re going to meet little success in the courts.

    • April 15, 2020 at 9:20 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 11

      How is the Federal Government ‘dragging its feet’?
      Details, please.

      • April 17, 2020 at 6:34 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 8

        No answer? Then we must conclude that the Federal Government isn’t dragging its feet, as was claimed…. until proof is provided to the contrary.

  • April 14, 2020 at 3:46 pm
    jason says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 5

    I’m sure he would be having a different conversation if his business was not affected by COVID19…

    • April 15, 2020 at 9:27 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 15

      I’m sure he wouldn’t.

      What is YOUR proof behind your CLAIM? Acute TDS doesn’t count as ‘proof’.

    • April 17, 2020 at 6:38 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 4

      Let me ask a more direct question; how would COVID-19 NOT affect Trump’s businesses but WOULD affect other businesses? How do you separate his business from others Trump and the Congress are trying to save?

      • April 17, 2020 at 10:35 am
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 4

        LOL
        Jason: Trump only cares because his businesses are affected
        Polar: PROVE IT
        Polar: I mean, it affects lots of businesses! You can’t say he doesn’t care about all businesses!

        You will switch the story to whatever narrative you think makes Herr Trump look better in the moment. You don’t care about right and wrong or truth, you are apathetic to fact. You are trolling.

        • April 19, 2020 at 7:12 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 7

          If what you claim, as a mind-reader,is correct, why didn’t Trump sign a bill that ONLY helps his businesses?

          I’ll wait for your lie-reply.

          • April 20, 2020 at 9:48 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Hey Polar, remember when you tried to tell everyone on this board that 90% of americans were more afraid of terrorism than global warming? A poll from JANUARY? And then it turned out that poll was January, 2016 and said no such thing? You accuse other people of dishonesty an awful lot for someone who’s been caught lying on these boards on a semi-regular basis. Hypocritical Harry.

          • April 21, 2020 at 6:43 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            Avoiding my direct question?

          • April 21, 2020 at 6:44 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            The poll said what I said it did.

          • April 21, 2020 at 10:31 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            LIE.
            today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/02/01/global-survey-us-among-least-worried-about-climate

            Here’s the poll. For one, you said it was “from January” when actually it’s from January 2016. Fine, this isn’t an outright lie even though you know it was a dishonest statement, since the poll is outdated.

            Where exactly does it say 90% of americans are more afraid of terrorism than climate change? It says more americans, four years ago, sure. But 90%? That’s a lie you have no doubled down on. What does that make you?

          • April 21, 2020 at 10:49 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Is this why you hate google? Because it’s so easy for people to search and figure out that you’re a liar?

    • April 21, 2020 at 7:07 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 4

      jason; I’m waiting for your reply. How are you ‘sure’?

      I’m sure you’re not capable of being 100% sure because of something I know that you apparently didn’t know when you posted your unfounded opinion.

  • April 14, 2020 at 3:56 pm
    Mark Hutchings says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 6

    the 46 States are part of the United States where the Constitution is the LAW of the Land. If they would like to secede from the Union, especially CA., please DO

  • April 14, 2020 at 10:23 pm
    Boonedoggle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 4

    Did Trump offer explanation on how his advice would not be in obvious conflict to well established law in McCarren-Ferguson granting the States exclusive regulatory authority of the insurance industry?

    • April 15, 2020 at 9:02 am
      Captain Planet says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 17
      Thumb down 10

      Tramp thinks the McCarren-Ferguson is some new French dip sandwich at McDonald’s. He’d have no clue what you are talking about. “Oh, I’ve heard they are piloting that sandwich. Has anyone tried it, is it any good? What about the all juice? Maybe I’ll have it delivered since no one can go to restaurants right now due to the fact I totally dropped the ball on this pandemic.”

      In all seriousness, you make an excellent point, Boondoggle, which is why you are seeing certain states mandate action on premium payments at the moment. Our legal team is in overtime trying to generate the language we will be using to execute on said mandates. I wonder how many hours that department is spending on Zoom these days.

      • April 15, 2020 at 9:36 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 15

        Your ranting and raving, politically-oriented posts will assure you win the Court Jester award on IJ.

        States MAY enforce proper, actuarially justified rates in compliance with their laws. That has nothing whatsoever to do with a federal mandate of coverage or rating adjustments to reflect actual or expected exposure to loss.

        • April 15, 2020 at 9:43 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Hot debate. What do you think?
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 12

          Clarification of ABOVE RE: STATE LAWS: adequate, not unfairly discriminatory, and equitable are the 3 primary qualifiers of fair rates mandated by state laws so as to comply with the M-F Law qualifier ‘adequate regulation at state level’. The exposure levels contemplated at inception of policies currently in force (PIF) has changed and states MAY mandate that they be adjusted downward. In personal lines, there is no adjustment mechanism in many auto policies, although some require mileage be reported annually – and DO have such a mechanism.

          Most commercial P&C policies would adjust per audit of exposures used to rate tehm; e.g. $100 of (audited) payroll.

          • April 15, 2020 at 10:06 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 7

            Yes, if a policy is composite rated, the insured and carrier settle up at audit. Payroll is often used but it can be gross sales, short tons, there are probably 25 types of exposure basis. Auto is often composite rated as well. I am fielding a number of questions about fleet operations suspending and can any midterm adjustment be made as a result. MIdterm adjustments on an auditable coverage line leads to auditing nightmares. Not to mention system reapplies when backdated endorsements come into play. I’ve been suggesting insureds save themselves those headaches and do not make any midterm changes at this time.

          • April 21, 2020 at 7:09 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            Apparently, you either missed or don’t understand the term ‘e.g.’.

    • April 15, 2020 at 9:32 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 9

      You forgot the distinct provision in PL-15 that states must comply with the standard of ‘adequate regulation’…. which has been established in case law subsequent to enactment of M-F. Otherwise, Federal anti-trust laws apply in full.

      • April 15, 2020 at 10:30 am
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 5

        LOL those words don’t mean what you think they mean.

        • April 15, 2020 at 8:54 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 9

          Your opinion is just that.

          • April 15, 2020 at 10:11 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 6

            Exactly what I’ve been saying on the covid article where you’re acting like an expert. You are not an expert and no one here cares for your often wildly inaccurate opinion either bud. Keep convincing yourself that bots are downvoting you, the truth is people just don’t like you.

          • April 21, 2020 at 6:46 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            You have yet to explain why my words don’t mean what I think. You can read the text of PL-15 to see their qualifiers as regards federal regulatory oversight of anti-trust laws in the absence of adequate state regulation.

          • April 21, 2020 at 10:33 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            Why don’t you explain why you lied about the youGov poll from January 2016? You just claimed up above that the poll said what you originally claimed, which is a lie.

          • April 21, 2020 at 4:18 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            That’s what I thought.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*