Where is the “new” cost savings? Business owners were never required to pay for the coverage if they did not feel it was needed.
This could not be a political ploy by Ms. Nap?
Don’t think this is that newsworthy.
The cost savings comes when you opt out of the TRIA coverage. Our commercial policies required TRIA coverage – the was not a choice to buy the policy without it.
another great piece of legislation that was not necessary. The only part of TRIA that was mandatory was that Insurers had to offer the coverage. The insureds were never required to take Terriorism coverage.The premiums were quoted separately so the insured could decide for themselves if the cover was worth it or not
And woe to the poor agent that doesn’t get that coverage rejection form in writing…in blood…witnessed by three members of the clergy…notarized…in triplicate.
As soon as an event occurs and that insured who rejected the coverage because he could save a couple hundred, finds there really is no coverage – what happens then? That claim will attract a storm of media (and likely the Gov.). And that claimant will tearfully swear that they never understood that they were rejecting this coverage…But wait – the agent has E&O coverage! Hurrah – all is saved.
correction:
the coverage is in the standard fire policy in Arizona, is not optional, but the premium for terrorism is optional and the buyer has always has to option to avoid the premium charges.
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.
Where is the “new” cost savings? Business owners were never required to pay for the coverage if they did not feel it was needed.
This could not be a political ploy by Ms. Nap?
Don’t think this is that newsworthy.
The cost savings comes when you opt out of the TRIA coverage. Our commercial policies required TRIA coverage – the was not a choice to buy the policy without it.
another great piece of legislation that was not necessary. The only part of TRIA that was mandatory was that Insurers had to offer the coverage. The insureds were never required to take Terriorism coverage.The premiums were quoted separately so the insured could decide for themselves if the cover was worth it or not
And woe to the poor agent that doesn’t get that coverage rejection form in writing…in blood…witnessed by three members of the clergy…notarized…in triplicate.
As soon as an event occurs and that insured who rejected the coverage because he could save a couple hundred, finds there really is no coverage – what happens then? That claim will attract a storm of media (and likely the Gov.). And that claimant will tearfully swear that they never understood that they were rejecting this coverage…But wait – the agent has E&O coverage! Hurrah – all is saved.
Sound familiar?
JB you are incorrect as confirmed by CT.
CT I agree with you. Coverage was always an option.
correction:
the coverage is in the standard fire policy in Arizona, is not optional, but the premium for terrorism is optional and the buyer has always has to option to avoid the premium charges.