Insurance against terrorism

Hi everyone,

So this is a question that no one wants to ask or think about but watching the news lately and even reading through some threads on the coffee lounge got me thinking.

Should we have our property insured against terrorism?? I have not come across a standard policy which covers terrorism or war. We all know insurance companies only need a sniff of an excuse not to pay us out.

I have a few investment properties and one of them is in the an Australian CBD. Obviously only certain properties would need this cover depending on their location etc.

What are people thoughts on this type of cover?

Thanks.
Nathan.
 
Unfortunately when people start worrying about this, it's a win for the terrorists. :(

The only sort of property that might conceivably need this is going to be in a CBD or very close to a very public area.

Even then the odds of being involved in an act of terror are lower than almost anything else that might happen to your IP.
 
Standard exclusion in all insurance policies. Are your properties any more of a target than the neighbours? (pick your tenants more carefully next time round).
 
My property is in the CBD...as stated. Not sure what this has to do with my tenants either.

Hardly see how thinking about insurance makes the terrorist win. Insurance is simply risk mitigation, there is either risk or there isn't. As a property owner we take out insurance against natural disasters, fires, malicious tenants (any thing of risk). Unfortunately terrorism is a risk in this day and age whether we like it or not. I wish it wasn't.

This isn't a post about being to scared to leave home in the morning due to fear...it is a general discussion about insurance. I as mush as anyone hopes nothing ever eventuates with terrorism however it is a risk, if you think otherwise you need to take a look outside.

I suggest we all read our insurance PDS as the ones I have seen are very open ended to what they exclude for terrorism and war. for example.

"Any act(s) of Terrorism that is directly or indirectly caused
by, contributed to by, or in any way involves or is connected
with biological, chemical, radioactive, or nuclear pollution or
contamination
For the purpose of this exclusion, an act of terrorism
includes any act, or preparation in respect of action, or
threat of action designed to influence the government de
jure or de facto of any nation or any political division
thereof, or in pursuit of political, religious, ideological or
similar purposes to intimidate the public or a section of the
public of any nation by any person or group(s) of persons
whether acting alone or on behalf of or in connection with
any organisation(s) or government(s) de jure or de facto,
and which:
? involves violence against one or more persons, or
? involves damage to property, or
? endangers life other than that of the person committing
the action, or
? creates a risk to health or safety of the public or a
section of the public, or
? is designed to interfere with or to disrupt an electronic
system. "

Nathan.
 
My point about the terrorists winning is that they're a tiny minority that's trying to achieve maximum impact. They don't win by destroying the enemy, rather they achieve their goals through fear. I'm not saying we shouldn't be prudent and diligent, but we can't let them rule and disrupt our lives on what is mostly threat.

Listening to the radio last week a number of callers were stating that they were truly concerned about terrorism on Australian soil and would curb their behavior until the threat was over. Personally I think this is paranoid and I think this mentality simply gives power to the threat.

I also think that Australia is quite well equipped to deal with terrorism. Our police do a pretty good job in prevention, our boarder security is fairly effective as is our tactical response.

I refuse to spend time worrying about this until it actually is worth worrying about it. For now I'll leave it to those who make it their jobs to worry about this (police, government, military, etc). I don't blame anyone for wanting to insure their property against terrorism, but there are those who want to get access to guns which is a complete over reaction.
 
The question of whether you should or shouldn't insure against terrorism is moot. You can't insure against terrorism.
 
The withdrawal of terrorism insurance cover by insurance companies followed the terrorist attacks around the world particular the events of September 11 2001 in the US.

The Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation (ARPC) was then established to develop and administer a reinsurance scheme which commenced operation on 1 July 2003.

Through the scheme, insurance companies can choose to reinsure the risk of claims for eligible terrorism losses by paying premiums to ARPC. Consequently, holders of eligible insurance contracts will be covered in the event of a declared terrorist incident with insurers required to meet these claims in accordance with the other terms and conditions of individual policies.
 
The withdrawal of terrorism insurance cover by insurance companies followed the terrorist attacks around the world particular the events of September 11 2001 in the US.

The Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation (ARPC) was then established to develop and administer a reinsurance scheme which commenced operation on 1 July 2003.

Through the scheme, insurance companies can choose to reinsure the risk of claims for eligible terrorism losses by paying premiums to ARPC. Consequently, holders of eligible insurance contracts will be covered in the event of a declared terrorist incident with insurers required to meet these claims in accordance with the other terms and conditions of individual policies.

Not for resi property.
 
Back
Top