question for the small businesses on Boyston street and the areas of the lockdown.
If the Obama admin officially says the bombings were acts of terror, then there is no insurance coverage for most small stores who lost money that week. Post 9/11 policies have a terrorism exclusion triggered by an official declaration of terrorism. This is one reason mr Obama initially was reticent to call this terror. The One Fund does not plan to make business interruption payments as far as I know. The bomber of course is judgment proof. You say the insurers should do the right thing and waive the exclusion? But wait that is not right to shareholders like good old Warren Buffett . What about u, the taxpayers? But it does not end here. Private health policies have caps for artificial limbs. Who pays for that and years of rehab? There are no good answers here that I can see
Insurance companies are in business to make money, not lose money, so they will find ways to insure the minimum amount of monetary outflow. That typically means the victim will foot the bill, if they can, or the tax payer will be called upon to do so. There was a lot of criticism of Obama for not immediately calling it an act of terror. And, what exactly is the legal definition regarding an act of terrorism. I can't say that I've ever read or heard what it is. It's just something that seems to be 'declared.'
An act dangerous to humans and property and intended to coerce US citizens or influence US coNDUCT OR policy. So if the bombing was revenge on Boston for giving too many parking tickets, for example, it would not be terrorism.
And don't think the insurers will roll over and pay-they fought like tigers after 9/11 to argue that 9/11 was "one occurrence" even though there were two planes hitting two towers. Reason-pay out is capped per occurrence.
Expect the same here if there is coverage since we have two bombs.
...In fact, you have to sign an acknowledgment every year that the policy excludes terrorism coverage.
However, you're wrong marikod, because you can still purchase terrorism insurance as a separate supplementary policy. The coverage is quite expensive when compared to property and liability coverage and it will not cover nuclear or biological attacks, or acts of war.
BTW, it doesn't matter what Obama calls it, the insurance companies will do whatever the fuck they want. They will determine the least expensive way to pay out claims and then label the event that way to justify the low payout.
...In fact, you have to sign an acknowledgment every year that the policy excludes terrorism coverage.
However, you're wrong marikod, because you can still purchase terrorism insurance as a separate supplementary policy. The coverage is quite expensive when compared to property and liability coverage and it will not cover nuclear or biological attacks, or acts of war.
BTW, it doesn't matter what Obama calls it, the insurance companies will do whatever the fuck they want. They will determine the least expensive way to pay out claims and then label the event that way to justify the low payout.
That 5 million will be met pretty easy I would imagine. Quote : It’s helpful that President Obama has called it an act of terror but that is not necessarily dispositive for insurance purposes, the attorney said: “Under TRIA and under some policies that have adopted the TRIA definition of terrorism, you need the U.S. Treasury secretary and you need U.S. attorney general and the secretary of state to label an incident an act of terrorism. So this will be one of the few circumstances where President Obama’s word is not as good as Treasury secretary’s.”
And according to Brian Green and Jack Dearie, attorneys at law firm Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP’s insurance and reinsurance department in New York, the attack has so far satisfied several prongs of the TRIA definition of a terrorist act — it was a violent act and resulted in damage in the United States. But some requirements have not yet been met, the lawyers added.
The Treasury Secretary, Secretary of State and the Attorney General all must certify it as an act of terrorism, which has not yet happened, and can only happen if there is $5 million of aggregate property and casualty losses, the lawyers said. Additionally, under the TRIA definition, the act must be committed by an individual or individuals as part of “an effort to coerce the U.S. population or influence the policy or affect the U.S. government by coercion.”
that I wasn't doing before the Patriot Act. But, then you may just be intentionally overstating the case. I do agree, it gives our government too much leeway to snoop into our personal lives, though I would not like to be the people having to try and balance our personal freedoms against protecting our citizens from terrorist attacks. I can imagine that those living in major metropolitan areas would lean toward more protections from terrorism, due to the fact they'd be more likely targeted, while those people not living in such areas would lean more toward liberties, feeling that they are much less the target of such attacks.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
