- Al Gore’s climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Army’s 3-D printed bombs will create ‘a whole new universe’ of deadly capabilities
- Hamas calls on Hezbollah to join in fight against Israel
- Senators to FIFA, others: Don’t reward Putin with the World Cup in 2018
- U.S. condemns Israeli shelling of shelter in Gaza
- Obamacare shoots premiums up by 88 percent in California
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- Obama to Republicans: ‘Stop just hatin’ all the time’
- U.S. chemical sites vulnerable despite millions spent on security: Congress
- Driverless cars to hit the British streets by 2015
Insurers want to keep subsidy for losses from terrorist acts
Question of the Day
More than a decade after Congress got into the insurance business, offering policies for businesses wary of terrorism-related losses in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, lawmakers are weighing the program’s future.
“It is critical to our families, workers, businesses and economy that Congress develops a long-term solution to terrorism risk insurance,” said Rep. Judy Biggert, Illinois Republican and chairwoman of the Financial Services subcommittee on insurance, housing and community opportunity, which held a hearing Tuesday on the program.
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, established in November 2002, serves as a federal backstop for private insurers who started dropping terrorism coverage after 9/11 because of the uncertainty of future attacks. The law requires private insurers to offer government-backed terrorism policies to businesses. With the government backing, insurers are on the hook for only a small portion of potential losses.
The program is set to expire in December 2014, and insurers and company policyholders are calling on Congress to renew the subsidy or watch insurers drop the coverages or raise premiums.
Opponents of the program say TRIA has served its purpose and it’s time to move on.
“We have now reached a point where the private sector is increasingly capable of providing that coverage at appropriate prices without government support,” said David John, senior research fellow in retirement security and financial institutions at the Heritage Foundation. “The insurance crisis has passed, and the insurance industry now has enough information about terrorist attacks to again provide this coverage.”
The costs of terrorism insurance has declined, Mr. John said, because more than 75 percent of larger firms have purchased coverage — and there have been no major attacks since 2001.
Continuing to rely on government support only leads to underpriced coverage, he said.
Rolf Lundberg, senior vice president for congressional and public affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told the subcommittee that terrorism insurance remains “vital” to the economy.
“The terrorism peril is simply too intrinsically linked to government policy and intelligence to be solely handled by the private sector,” said Mr. Lundberg, testifying on behalf of the Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism, of which the Chamber is a member. “As we saw in the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the lack of terrorism insurance contributed to a paralysis in the economy.”
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, led to $35 billion in claims — an unexpected strike that nearly led to the collapse of the terrorism insurance industry and an economic slowdown in industries such as construction, tourism, business travel and real estate finance.
Studies show that more than $415 billion in real estate transactions were stalled or canceled in the 14 months after the attacks because of the lack of terrorism insurance, which led to the direct loss of 300,000 jobs from deferred construction projects.
The impact of limited terrorism insurance coverage would be even worse in today’s economy, Mr. Lundberg said. “There is every reason to expect that the jobs impact would be greater and more widespread today were the certainty of the terrorism insurance program to be pulled out from under our economy.”
TRIA provides a safety net for private insurance companies when the cost of terrorism exceeds an insurer’s coverage ability.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Tim Devaney is a national reporter who covers business and international trade for The Washington Times. Previously, he worked for the Detroit News, Grand Rapids Press, Portland Press Herald and Bangor Daily News. Tim can be reached at email@example.com.
- Dysfunction, disarray at Homeland Security management cited in IG's report
- GM's Barra to be first woman to run top American carmaker
- Treasury sells last shares in 'Government Motors'
- U.S. businesses reach out quickly to partners in Iran
- General Motors ending Chevrolet sales in Europe to focus on Opel and Vauxhall
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
- Geraldo Rivera: Matt Drudge 'doing his best to stir up a civil war'
- Lois Lerner hated conservatives, new emails show
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- HURT: Impeaching Obama is a losing strategy for the GOP
- CARSON: Rudderless U.S. foreign policy
- Patent workers paid to exercise, shop, do chores: report
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- Fla. mom arrested for allowing 7-year-old son to walk to park alone
- Senate overcomes first filibuster of Obama's border-spending bill
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world