U.S. Insurers Bite the Bullet

[Venus]

Terrorist attacks were not an act of war, say U.S. insurance carriers. Thus, the property owners are covered.

<u>Read the current status here.</u> (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=94621)

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

So kick the limits and walk away. What's the big deal. This is why insurance companies exist, to pay claims. Besides, there will be layer after layer of re-insurance on risks this large. I've heard Munich Re and some of the folks at Lloyd's are on the hook big time, but that's their job. That's why insurer's have such huge reserves and lay off part of the risk in further re-insurance, unless they are stupid.

The one guy in the article was right though, if this loss is excluded it should not be paid and the insurers have a duty to all policyholders/stock holders to not pay non-covered claims.

Most property insurance CGL type policies exclude loss due to war and insurrections, civil wars and undeclared wars as well as declared wars. In the past, riots have not been deemed to be insurrections. It seems there needs to be action between to States or entities that at least have some claim to sovereignty, which is absent here.

Further, a risk like the WTC could have a manuscripted policy rather than a commercial product so who knows what was negotiated. A good risk manager would certainly consider loss due to terrorism as a risk to be considered due to the history of that building alone.

I wonder if it was insured to value and what the co-insurance ramifications are images/icons/wink.gif

I know, this is kinda arcane, but it's good stuff for us coverage lawyers. We're the one's with the thick glasses and pocket protectors.

Venus, when this gets old maybe we should send it to Legal Eagles??

[Venus]

Only quasi-arcane. images/icons/wink.gif images/icons/tongue.gif I followed it fine except for this:

"It seems there needs to be action between to States or entities that at least have some claim to sovereignty, which is absent here."

'Splain yourself, please (when you have time).

"Venus, when this gets old maybe we should send it to Legal Eagles??"

It seems old already. Nobody except you and I seem to have any interest. So, sure, we can move it. I think the subject of the insurance on these buildings, in view of the way by which they were demolished, could become quite interesting.

I'll move the thread. Or, I'll try. Never moved one before, so I'll learn now. images/icons/shocked.gif

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

States (that is, "nation") or those that claim to be nations. Hostilities between two or definite entities. A shadowy group of terrorists probably wouldn't qualify. I doubt they claim they are a sovereign nation. In any event, ambiguity creeps in, which always inures to the benefit of the insured.

Near the bottom of the page you will find a "move topic" button. Click and follow instructions, but . . . power corrupts.