
US Congress seeks to extend terrorism risk insurance
Daily news headlines
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 [email protected] or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact [email protected] to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact [email protected] to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email [email protected]
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email [email protected]
More on Regulation
Regulation
French regulator questions need for share trading equivalence
Esma’s reinterpretation ahead of Brexit reduces need for equivalence system, says AMF official
Receive this by email