weighing up terrorism insurance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    weighing up terrorism insurance

    I have two quotes for annual renewal of our portfolio of management properties under an extensive block policy; mixed residential and commercial.

    One is from an absolutely top world class insurer and household name; and another from a firm new to the UK but supposedly reputable and fast growing through professional brokers. I will not mention names. However my question is which to go for !

    With the holding insurer cover the perils covered are exceptionally wide and include loss of rent for all terrorist events, should they occur but the newcomer excludes any terrorist losses (such as loss of three years rent) arising on acts of chemical biological or nuclear terrorism. The holding insurer is 21% more expensive than the newcomer.

    All thoughts welcomed!

    #2
    Possible solution: Tell the holding insurer about the quote you have received from the newcomer. They may reduce thier premium.

    Comment


      #3
      If you're in westminster get the terrorism cover if you're in Bembridge take the risk.

      Comment


        #4
        Our brokers say that the leading companies don't seem to care if they lose a bit of market share, they are determined to yank up the rating and hence premium income as overall they have paid out slightly more than their income in the current period.

        Comment


          #5
          Is this American based insurers still smarting from 9/11?

          Comment


            #6
            If there is an act of chemical, biological or nuclear terrorism, three years rent is the last thing anyone will be worried about.
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #7
              Ammonium Nitrate has been used in a number of European terrorist attacks see this article
              https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...explosion.html

              Comment


                #8
                I can't read the Daily Mail (Ad Blocker), but Ammonium Nitrate isn't a chemical weapon, it's used to make explosives.
                Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons are a different class of weapon - the Sarin Gas attack in Japan is the only one I can think of recently.

                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  #9
                  ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil) has been the terroists explosive of choice for years now, the IRA used to use it back in the 60's and 70's.

                  Chemical weapons attack - Novichok in Salisbury would probably count, although that was a targeted hit rather than a terroist event.

                  EDIT- At least three triggers there for the GCHQ filters to flag up this post, 4 if you count my username.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Good thinking - I was forgetting state "terrorism".
                    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I was offered terrorism cover - we have a nuclear power station around 10 miles away - I decided if that suddenly glowed bright orange it wouldn't matter if I had the insurance or not so declined lol

                      Comment


                        #12
                        We will all go together when we go
                        All suffused with an incandescent glow
                        No one will have the endurance
                        To collect on his insurance
                        Lloyd's of London will be loaded when they go
                        Tom Lehrer - We Will All Go Together When We Go

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
                        Warning it's so old it's in black and white.
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          #13
                          When I die the world ends.

                          Of course that would just be my point of view at that time.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I used to think that terrorism cover is not required except for blocks of flats in London or near to airports. But it seems that if you owe the mortgage lender, the debt is still there after the building is destroyed and the borrower still has to pay off the mortgage loan.

                            If Directors want to avoid being sued by leaseholders for failing to insure for terrorism cover, its a must buy.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I completely agree that terrorism is an essential aspect of insurance to buy for a freeholder to fulfill its (or his or her) covenant, found in most modern leases "to insure comprehensively", the question was whether to accept a policy which excludes losses due to "NCB" (which in happier days stood for no claims bonus, but now in this context means nuslear chemical or biological terrorism. I think the onus is on the freeholder to insure as comprehensively as possible.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X