Acts of terror and war not covered by life, property and other forms of insurance

[markabilly]

As pointed out by a friend, acts of terror and war are not covered by the typical insurance policies written for life insurance, property insurance and other forms of insurance in the USA. Neither is "nuclear" damages.

The Boston bombing has been declared an act of terror. The result can hurt the victims.

In other words, the man whose SUV was stolen and shot up by police might not have any insurance coverage for the damages to his car. The same for the boat.

The people who died in the bombing may not have had any life insurance coverage to provide any benefits to loved ones to help them through money diffculties. The same for disability policies for the loss of a limb.

The same for some health insurance policies (not sure who widespread that may be) so those who need artificial limbs and their medical bills paid, may not have coverage.



Personally, I have problems with this exclusion. It is one thing to exclude coverage for a massive war that destroys half of the country.....but "acts of terror" that has been added on to policies in the last few years, does not have the same justification :(



It would be really bad news for the victims if an investigation into the fertilizer plant explosion lead to a determination that it was some "act of terrorism"

[BDunnell]

This is actually a very interesting point.

[ioan]

Well well, welcome to savage capitalism where people get screwed left right and middle by corporations and the corporate owned government.

[BleAivano]

I could be wrong but i think i read somewhere that the hospitals would not put any financial demands on the victims in the Boston bombings who need/needed medical care.

[Koz]

I quickly went through my insurances.

Life insurance does not have anything about acts of war or terrorism, so I assume it's not excluded.
Health and Car insurance both have exclusions.

[anthonyvop]

Don't worry.

Our Dear leader will just print some more money to pay off the victims.

[anthonyvop]

Well well, welcome to savage capitalism where people get screwed left right and middle by corporations and the corporate owned government.


How so? Do you not read your policies before you sign them or are you just another lazy, mooching, entitlement, stooge?

If you don't read your policy the only one to blame is YOU!!!!

[BDunnell]

How so? Do you not read your policies before you sign them or are you just another lazy, mooching, entitlement, stooge?

If you don't read your policy the only one to blame is YOU!!!!

Ah, yes, anthonyvop castigating someone for not reading something properly. The satirist who writes his posts is doing some excellent work this week.

[anthonyvop]

Ah, yes, anthonyvop castigating someone for not reading something properly. The satirist who writes his posts is doing some excellent work this week.

What?


You believe people should just sign anything without reading it? Don't worry right? Big Brother will take care of you with the money from the responsible.

Amazing how people like you think.

[Rollo]

rktbnknPpEg

Youi is an insurance company in Australia and is a subsidiary of Rand Merchant Insurance Holdings Group from South Africa. They openly tell you in their adverts that they ask lots of questions and the answers you give help you to "save" money. They also take those same answers to those questions and write in individual exceptions to the policy.
If you told them that you take a train to work, and that one morning you don't but get involved in an accident, they won't pay out because you told them up front about the exception.

I know that the building insurance at the place where I work does include acts of terror, war and acts of god; specifically because we asked them to (we're also the strata managers as well). If markabilly suggests that acts of terror and war are not covered by the typical insurance policies, then it might be worth reviewing your policies if you think that there is a risk.

Insurance is always a gamble. Insurance companies gamble equally the same way as people who pay to be covered do.

[BDunnell]

What?

You have to be a spoof. It's excellent, I have to say.

[markabilly]

[quote="Rollo"]


If you told them that you take a train to work, and that one morning you don't but get involved in an accident, they won't pay out because you told them up front about the exception.

QUOTE]
Not sure I understand what you meant?

The problem is that many insurance policies are written on policies mandated and approved by state board insurance agencies, and when they approved such policies with the exclusions, it is very hard to find policies that include such coverage provisions for these events.

The alternative without regulation is that the insurance companies will write policies that provide even less coverage in the absence of regulations. It is called unequal bargaining power and a lack of understanding by the general public of what they are getting.

Besides, what are the chances of being involved in a terror event or act of war, while sitting in your own house. Seems pretty small, but.....

These acts of terror exclusions were not all that widespread until the 911 terror attack, and now it is hard to find such coverage in the usual standard coverage policy unless you pay extra (that is in the USA-) I dunno about other countries

[markabilly]

I could be wrong but i think i read somewhere that the hospitals would not put any financial demands on the victims in the Boston bombings who need/needed medical care.

Actually, you raise something I forgot about. There was a practice called "patient dumping" of people needing emergency care that was widespread before certain fed regulations came into play.



If someone did not have insurance, they were taken to the county hospital rather that a private hospital and sometimes even taken from the hospital where their treatment had begun to such a hospital.

Of course, there were a number of folks who did not last the trip but if they had gotten more immediate treatment, they would have lived. :rolleyes: Even people who had insurance, but just happenned to not be carrying their proof of insurance with them at the time.


Price of mercy ain't cheap... :rolleyes:


So if a hospital received medicare payments, as a part of getting that money, they were required to provide proper and necessary ER treatment, regardless of health insurance, even it meant not getting paid.

of course after the emergency passes, they are still free to kick them out or send them elsewhere...

[BDunnell]

These acts of terror exclusions were not all that widespread until the 911 terror attack, and now it is hard to find such coverage in the usual standard coverage policy unless you pay extra (that is in the USA-) I dunno about other countries

I couldn't be absolutely certain, but I'm pretty sure I've heard terrorist attacks being quoted to me among the exemptions for an insurance policy. My lack of certainty is down to the fact that I only really take notice of those exemptions that are likely directly to affect me.

[markabilly]

I couldn't be absolutely certain, but I'm pretty sure I've heard terrorist attacks being quoted to me among the exemptions for an insurance policy. My lack of certainty is down to the fact that I only really take notice of those exemptions that are likely directly to affect me.

that is the problem of perception of risk by someone seeking insurance. You really do not need any insurance until something unfortunate happens

[BDunnell]

that is the problem of perception of risk by someone seeking insurance. You really do not need any insurance until something unfortunate happens

As with anything, you've got to weigh it up based on reasonable likelihood. If damage or loss caused by terrorism is not included in my home insurance policy, it doesn't worry me as the likelihood of said damage being caused is extremely low. By contrast, the specific exclusion of camera equipment away from the home under most policies is more of a problem for me, so I've taken specific steps in that regard.

Of course, not every eventuality can be ruled out. However, with that comes the corollary that not every eventuality can be covered, either.

[ioan]

How so? Do you not read your policies before you sign them or are you just another lazy, mooching, entitlement, stooge?

If you don't read your policy the only one to blame is YOU!!!!

:laugh:
And your point is?

[anthonyvop]

:laugh:
And your point is?

Sorry. I forgot. As a left winger you are incapable of understanding the concept of LOGIC and Responsibility let alone actually practicing it.

[Rollo]

Boston bombing amputees face tough, costly recovery - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-boston-bombings-medical-20130421,0,421941.story)
Unlike soldiers and Marines injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, who have access to the latest prosthetics and extensive rehabilitation programs at Walter Reed and elsewhere, the Boston victims will not be guaranteed coverage for all their medical care.
Health insurance plans often cap how much they will pay for prosthetics, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars depending on the complexity of the device. Insurers also frequently limit the number of rehabilitation visits they will cover.
Twenty states have laws barring dollar limits on prosthetics, according to the Amputee Coalition, a national advocacy group that has been fighting to ban the limits. But such limits are still permitted in most states and in many employer-sponsored plans that are exempt from state regulations.
- LA Times, 21st Apr 2012

There was a chap on ABC News 24 in the 9pm bulletin who whilst in the hospital, found out that his insurance company would not be willing to pay his medical bills because this was an act of terrorism. I suspect that this might be just one of many over the next few weeks - none of these will make it to telly though because it's not sensational enough to make the news.


of course after the emergency passes, they are still free to kick them out or send them elsewhere...

What does that say about how the nation views the value of the people who make it up? What does that say about the people who make up such a nation and how they value each other?

[Starter]

I suspect that this might be just one of many over the next few weeks - none of these will make it to telly though because it's not sensational enough to make the news.
Oh yes it will. Too many in the media love to expose big business, of which insurance is one of the biggest, for it not to get lots of play. Wonder what Obamacare advocates think of this one?

[Gregor-y]

All the more reason for national healhcare, duh!
Obamacare was always the half-assed Republican plan for when the old system got so grotesque there would be an up-swell of support for a national program. Republicans only demonize it now because it's politically expedient.

[Starter]

All the more reason for national healhcare, duh!
Obamacare was always the half-assed Republican plan for when the old system got so grotesque there would be an up-swell of support for a national program. Republicans only demonize it now because it's politically expedient.
Blue ribbon for rewrite of history!

[Gregor-y]

So you get the red ribbon for ignoring it? That would be too socialist, wouldn't it? How about a white ribbon?

[ioan]

Sorry. I forgot. As a left winger you are incapable of understanding the concept of LOGIC and Responsibility let alone actually practicing it.

And where exactly did you explain the relation between my post and yours?
If you would be able to communicate a clear idea I might even try to understand it even if it is wrong.

[SGWilko]

Surely acts of terrorism should be lumped together with acts of god, as most terrorism is borne out of religious differences.

This being the case, should one be out of pocket as a result of a loss due to terrorism, one should take a lead from Mr B Connolly and sue the church!

[anthonyvop]

And where exactly did you explain the relation between my post and yours?
If you would be able to communicate a clear idea I might even try to understand it even if it is wrong.



Wow. Does anyone need a more glaring example of Liberal think?

[Jag_Warrior]

Don't worry.

Our Dear leader will just print some more money to pay off the victims.

I'd rather see it stay here than be sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or Israel.

[Starter]

I'd rather see it stay here than be sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or Israel.
Personnally, I'd like to see some of our money continue to go to Afghanistan, and a few other places, aimed at jihadists and disguised as cruise missiles and bombs. The rest of it can stay here.

[D-Type]

Leaving aside the pseudo-political polemic, this situation is just pain wrong.

[markabilly]

Leaving aside the pseudo-political polemic, this situation is just pain wrong.

Yse sir, painfully so for those who face it.

[markabilly]

While it was around and in limited use before, it was 911 attack that caused it to spread through out the USA like weeds in a garden. As I said before not sure about other countries although the international reinsurance market already had developed such an exclsuion (re-insurance is a form of insurance for an insurance company).

From a fairly well respected insurance website, discussing the origin in the standard ISO forms used in ccommerical type of coverage:


The destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, represents the largest single insured event in history. Knowledgeable estimates of total covered losses—property, general, and aviation liability, workers compensation, life—range from $30 billion to as much as $70 billion. Liability claims are the slowest to emerge, and have been slowed even further by calls from attorney groups for a "moratorium" on lawsuits stemming from the attacks, and by proposals for a federal compensation program for the families of victims. (One element of such a program would be a waiver of legal action by recipients as a condition for receiving benefits.) No matter how the final figures shape up, September 11 will easily overshadow the next largest insured disaster: the $19 billion in losses caused by Hurricane Andrew in 1992.The scope of the disaster, and the disturbing ease with which the attack was apparently carried out, struck a devastating psychological blow to the international insurance industry, which had already begun to respond to mounting losses by raising rates and imposing restrictions on coverage. Well before the renewal of reinsurance treaties on January 1, 2002, reinsurers announced the imposition of new terrorism exclusions as a condition of coverage.

Faced with an inability to spread the risk of terrorist attacks through the worldwide reinsurance network, domestic insurers sought relief on two alternative fronts: governmental action to fill the void left by the reinsurers; or contract language that would exclude injury and damage caused by acts of terrorism.



In November, Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO), made an initial filing of exclusionary language that would address injury and damage from terrorist acts. A number of insurers had already by this time drafted their own similar terrorism exclusions. As it became more and more likely through December that Congress would not be able to reach a consensus on providing a federal "backstop" to insured terrorism losses, state insurance departments began examining the various approaches taken by ISO and individual insurers with regard to terrorism. In consultation with state regulators, ISO revised its original terrorism filing, limiting the exclusion to specifically catastrophic losses.

When the first session of the 107th Congress adjourned in December without passing any of the federal reinsurance proposals that had been introduced, the insurance industry acted quickly on the second of its alternatives: excluding terrorism losses from coverage in standard property and casualty insurance policies. On December 21, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) endorsed the revised ISO language and recommended its approval by state insurance departments. Those filings, which have to date been approved—and implemented—in 45 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam, are the subject of the rest of this article.

***

CONCLUSION:
Given an insurance policy exclusion that applies only when terrorists have killed or injured 50 people; or employed nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons; or destroyed more than $25 million worth of property(THIS IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT DESTROYED BY A PARTICULAR EVENT< EVEN THOUGH A PARTICULAR COMPANY MAY HAVE A LOSS CONSIDERABLY LESS), the only legitimate response is a fervent hope that no insurer ever has occasion to use it. Beyond that, a wait-and-see attitude seems especially appropriate with respect to this particular coverage issue.



The ISO Terrorism Exclusions: Background and Analysis (http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2002/woodward02.aspx)


More discussion about why the "act of war" did not apply in the 911 attack:
Attack on America: The Insurance Coverage Issues - Part 1 (http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2001/gibson09.aspx)


Right ot wrong....