posted on September 12, 2001 09:09:06 PM new
Someone on another AW forum brought up something interesting. Insurance companies have riders in their policies about not being liable in the event of an "act of war". I know mine does. I would also imagine airlines have a similar rider. So, since the President declared this an act of war, who will compensate the victims and/or their families? I don't mean to appear calloused or morbid or crass, but since it has been mention by a couple of others, I know I am not alone in my wondering.
posted on September 12, 2001 09:23:56 PM new
Everytime I hear the term "act of war" I cringe hoping that the insurance companies don't use that as an out. According to CNN the insurance companies have already announced that they will be paying all policies due - and that they consider this terrorism - and not an act of war. I just hope that they don't look at the total amount they'll have to pay out and change their minds... technically I guess they could.
posted on September 12, 2001 09:56:15 PM new
Thanks mybiddness-I had not heard that. I hope they stick by that too!
These people suffered a horrible wrong. Money will never be adequate, but life must go on and the survivors must have resources!
Even those fortunate enough to not have been at work yet, now have no jobs to go to!
I have noticed quite a few public service announcements about banks and organizations that have set up accounts to allow people to make donations. I was wondering who will coordinate and distribute these funds? I just hope that those that are entitled will indeed receive the donations!
This morning on one of our regional TV stations they had a diddy about how wonderful the blood drive was going in Houston. They said it would be available to the victims if needed. Otherwise, it would stay in Houston. So apparently all the blood being donated around the nation today was not automatically being sent to New York. Maybe that's just the way it's done?
posted on September 12, 2001 11:35:54 PM new
I heard it said on one talk show that the President didn't actually declare war until after the fact, so the tragic deaths WILL be covered, since at the time of occurance, there was no war. They also said that any insurance company that doesn't cover them will probably get a TON of bad publicity because it's just not right.
posted on September 13, 2001 04:15:06 AM new
One of the news station has been scrolling a message across the screen stating that the insurance companies will be paying all policies.
posted on September 13, 2001 04:53:02 AM new
NY was also declared a Federal Disaster area which means there are all sorts of funds available if you know how to apply for them.
posted on September 13, 2001 07:04:19 AM new
As an insurance and investments agent, I know that no one company would have insured the entire trade center. Because of earthquakes, fires, etc, each company sets a limit on how many commercial policy dollars they sell per city block.
Furthermore, each company is underwritten by several underwriters (such as Lloyds) so that no one company carries the entire burden of the loss.
As far as the life policies go, they also will be underwritten-and I can't imagine ANY company refusing to pay these claims. If they did, they might as well shut their doors and go home.
If anyone is hurt financially, my guess would be Lloyds, who is a major underwriter for this country.
posted on September 13, 2001 07:08:01 AM new
It could all be pure BS. the suits come on to TV/media and make their blather.....but when the time comes the grunts.claims administrator will do their job as it is told to them. Either deny the claims outright or stall, stall and divert till the claimant goes away. It is more than likely that it will happen.
My re-collection of policy language is "losses are not covered that are due to Acts of War and/or terorism"
Its a contract that is not voided by catastrophic events.
posted on September 13, 2001 08:28:32 AM new
Bush calling the hijackings "acts of war" seems a really stupid use of hyperbole.
Doing so inappropriately honors the perpetrators, echoes their rhetoric, and will serve as inspiration to those of like minds. Bands of disaffected criminals do not deserve the respect of calling their actions "acts of war", however destructive they may be.
The insurance implications of doing so can easily be overriden, however... should participants be brought to court, how can our jurists now respond when they claim our courts lack jurisdiction over "acts of war"?
