Sign of the times ?

[RogerS]

I'm involved in the running of a block of 25 flats in London. We got a quotation the other day for block building insurance.

The main quote was £4,937.44

and a separate line item Terrorism: £1,128.56

Sign of the times or an excuse to squeeze more premiums?

 

[Midnight]

since when did insurers need an excuse to screw up their premiums.????

seldom hear of one cuttin their rates...

 

[wizer]

i think its a bit of both Roger

 

[MikeW]

Hi Roger,

Don't know about the UK, but 1-2 years or so ago there was legislation passed in the US that required insurance companies to offer the insurance. Most likely it was legislated because they were not going to do so as evidenced by the lobbying that occurred.

The wording of the law here is that in order to pay out on a terrorism claim the act itself had to be a certified act of terrorism carried out by a foreign terrorist group--this certification is an government duty here.

By way of example, the World Trade center would have been covered, but the bombing in the federal center in Oklahoma years ago would not have as it was considered an act of domestic terrorism.

So in the US, though I think the ins. companies are glad to receive premiums for the insurance, they would rather not have to offer it. One act like the WTC every decade and they'll all go broke.

So, to reply to your rhetorical question, yep, it's a sign of the times.

 

[Noel]

We're quite lucky over here. Government pays for terrorist damage, bit of a big bill over the last 30 odd years.....If it's civil disturbance, ie a load of hooligans wrecking the place, it's still covered by the government but only if 3 or more people are involved and is therefore termed a riot. If only 2 hooligans, it's just straight foward criminal damage.

Noel