Cui bono? Follow the money, and all sorts of other clever expressions. As anyone who has lived more than 10 years knows, if you are the one paying the “independent consultant” to generate a report, you can make that report say anything you want. If the report writer doesn’t write what you want, you fire them and find another.
Pat is basically correct. TRIA requires commercial insurers in the covered lines to offer terrorism coverage, period. There’s no choice by the insurers to participate or not participate.
I guess then I’m missing the point. The above would not have been covered before TRIA. The proposed extension includes domestic terrorism.
Are you saying that absent TRIA the marketplace would have agreed to cover terrorism to include the scenario you described? (not being combative – just want to understand).
TRIA as currently (2007) constituted has a trigger limit of $100 million and and an individual insurer deductible of 20% of premium. It is limited to acts of foreign terrorisms. It would cover nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological, but only if the insurance policy would otherwise. Since most policies exclude NCBR, the current program effectively does not cover NCBR. The House bill as passed (HR 2761) would lower the trigger to $50m and would mandate NCBR coverage, albeit at a lower deductible.
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.
RAND obviously missed the point that in many states insurers have excluded terrorism completely – leaving only TRIA to cover businesses.
Government insurance programs always result in waste. Worse, TRIA has eliminated any true, creative, market based solution from being developed.
I thought carriers had to make terrorism coverage available in order to participate in TRIA (?).
JJ,
You’re right, government = waste.
Cui bono? Follow the money, and all sorts of other clever expressions. As anyone who has lived more than 10 years knows, if you are the one paying the “independent consultant” to generate a report, you can make that report say anything you want. If the report writer doesn’t write what you want, you fire them and find another.
Pat is basically correct. TRIA requires commercial insurers in the covered lines to offer terrorism coverage, period. There’s no choice by the insurers to participate or not participate.
TRIA does not cover domestic terrorism or acts of terrorism where the total cost is less than $5,000,000.
An anti-abortion terrorist group releasing anthrax in a restaurant would not be covered by TRIA but would be excluded from coverage in many states.
I guess then I’m missing the point. The above would not have been covered before TRIA. The proposed extension includes domestic terrorism.
Are you saying that absent TRIA the marketplace would have agreed to cover terrorism to include the scenario you described? (not being combative – just want to understand).
TRIA as currently (2007) constituted has a trigger limit of $100 million and and an individual insurer deductible of 20% of premium. It is limited to acts of foreign terrorisms. It would cover nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological, but only if the insurance policy would otherwise. Since most policies exclude NCBR, the current program effectively does not cover NCBR. The House bill as passed (HR 2761) would lower the trigger to $50m and would mandate NCBR coverage, albeit at a lower deductible.