US Congress seeks to extend terrorism risk insurance
The House of Representatives has defied a White House veto threat to extend government anti-terrorism risk insurance to 2022.
WASHINGTON – On September 19, two days after US President George Bush threatened to veto any extension to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), the House of Representatives passed a new bill – the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act – extending the government’s compensation scheme until 2022.
The TRIA was created after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center as a safety net for the insurance industry against terrorist-related risk and, after a 2005 renewal, was due to expire at the end of this year. The new bill expands the TRIA to also cover domestically generated terrorism. Cover includes nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological threats and the minimum claim has been halved, from $100 million to $50 million.
A statement by the Office of Management and Budget on September 17 had vowed to veto any such development. Bush has not vetoed one bill in his six years in office, but has issued 39 veto threats since the Democrats achieved majorities in the House and Senate in January. The White House described the TRIA as a “temporary mechanism” introduced amid the post-9/11 market dislocation, designed to be phased out as the market matured, to develop private anti-terrorism insurance. The revised act is backed by the corporate and insurance sectors, who claim there is no adequate sustainable commercial basis for a transition of responsibility to the private insurance market.
The new bill has been sent to the floor of the Senate, which, if the bill is passed as expected, will await a response from the White House
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
EU states take the slow road to new cross-border services ban
Late national transposition hampers foreign banks’ decisions on location of affected activities
Don’t mention the rules: the fight against prediction market abuse
For the CFTC to regulate new venues effectively, it must first redefine insider trading
Can the US FRTB revamp make the IMA great again?
Banks are finally presented with a viable internal models framework under Basel III’s market risk rules
UK rethinking tougher capital rules for US bank subsidiaries
US endgame draft would trigger UK Basel III trap floor for foreign banks, but PRA is reviewing
EBA proposes drastic overhaul to supervisory data reporting
Revamp will cut back the number of datapoints and integrate overlapping reports
CFTC wants to regulate prediction markets. Is it up to the task?
Former officials echo state gambling authorities’ concerns over agency’s ability to police betting risks
EBA seeks to allay Simm divergence concerns
EU validator pledges to co-ordinate with global regulators, but retains ability to act alone “if needed”
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say