A View From The Press Box

Sam:
Rebuke might be too strong a word. I just was not sure why there were quotes.

Now, I am not sure as to why there is hypocrisy on the part of the Administration. Since when did the industry become regulated by the Feds? I thought policy forms and exclusions came under each state's laws/regulations.

Whether the Administration calls this a war (which I happen to agree with) makes no difference as to how the policy forms respond. Policies pay based on the facts of the situation and the policy wording.

The insurance companies did attach terrorism exclusions, and then policyholders (also known as voters) and the insurance companies came to the Feds for help. Maybe you can better explain the charge of hypocrisy.

Thanks.

Before the second plane struck, I was thinking "war" risk. I was frankly amazed that no insurer sought to defend against a claim on this basis. So this was "vandalism and malicious mischief"?

We might expect that, if a permanent TRIA solution is not found--every schoolboy underwriter knows this is an unratable, therefore uninsurable, exposure--the "war" exclusions will get a broad rewriting to include any foreign based conspiracy derived from a political or religious agenda.

Carl J. Kotheimer, CPCU, ARM

You wanted Republican whiners who politicize everything. Just like insurance companies wanted.

Well, you got the do-nothing Congress unable to repay campaign contributions from public corporations with action that would make them surely unelectable!

The insurance industry after Hurricane Katrina cannot get any public support except to burn them, which shows that even when you think payoffs gave you everything you wanted, it's just to look, not have!

Let's not allow semantics to create an additional argument of hypocrisy in the White House. There is a marked difference between the use and meaning of the term "war" in an insurance policy exclusion context as compared to its use and meaning in political rhetoric.

There would equally be no valid exclusion based upon the singular fact that a loss was caused in the midst of a "war" on drugs or a "war" on poverty.

We must be cautious when considering such actual coverage issues, not to mix our policy term "apples" with our politically rallying "oranges."

Ken Levine
Nelson, Levine, de Luca & Horst
Blue Bell, PA

In response to Mr. Levine:

There is a big difference between a rhetorical "war" on drugs or poverty and the "war" on terrorism, which involves our military forces engaging in live combat, and the threat of a nuclear, chemical or biological attack.

Since we are facing an organized enemy armed with weapons of mass destruction, determined to penetrate our borders, I think that does, or should, meet the definition of a real "war" for insurance purposes.

In response to James:

The reason I blast the Bush administration for hypocrisy is that they want to engage our military in a worldwide shooting war against terrorism, yet will not acknowledge that we're in a shooting war for the sake of a reasonable insurance term excluding such risks.

If the current terrorism environment doesn't meet the letter of the contract on this exclusion, it certainly meets the spirit of the law and really should be excluded.

If insurers can reasonably exclude flood, delegating that risk to the federal government, they should be able to exclude terrorism as well, with a similar facility set up to cover that exposure, in my opinion.

In response to Joe:

I agree that the Republican-dominated insurance industry is really getting double-crossed by the party it supports so strongly, but I believe this is a sign of just how unpopular the insurance industry is overall, as well as how misunderstood and mistrusted.

Right. The policy wordings should apply regardless of the rhetoric.

It seems to me that the insurance industry is using war exclusions--they are just using them on the life and health side.

Life insurance policies exclude death from war or acts of war for men and women killed in the war on terror. Why is there a discrepancy for the p&c companies?

I think the original decision not to utilize the war risk exclusions was made because the p&c companies did not want to suffer the public outcry that probably would have resulted. It was a smart decision at the time because the country was angry and upset about the tragedy.

Now that the country has had some time to adjust to the post 9/11 world, perhaps it is time to consider whether the exclusion should be applied for terrorism.

I have exclusions in my personal homeowners policy that would apply under such a circumstance. Why not apply them for the commercial products as well?

I think all you folks need to first decide on a definition of "war," and then base your comments on that definition!

Webster's College Dictionary shows the definition of war to be "open armed conflict between countries or between factions within the same country."

Will using this definition change your comments?

In Response To 'Farm Boy':

I would suggest that Webster should perhaps update its definition of "war" in light of the new threats we face in the battle against organized terrorists.

While recent terrorist attacks do not appear to qualify as "war" under Webster's current definition, this certainly feels like a "war" to me.