Terrorism Risk Insurance Act extended for 15 years
Controversial temporary backstop in place until 2022
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) has been extended by an additional 15 years, following a vote of the House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services.The extension of the TRIA, which was passed by 49 votes to 20, comes despite wide-ranging opposition from a number of politicians and regulators, who argue that terrorism insurance is an issue the insurance industry should have dealt with by now and is not the responsibility of the US government.
Aside from the 15-year extension, the amended Act also includes further provisions not included in the original law, such as coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks, and amending the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism.
The TRIA will now take effect at terrorism-related damage valued at $50 million, and will decrease deductibles for damage valued at more than $1 billion. Additionally, the law requires continued studies of the development of a private market for terrorism risk insurance.
Introduced in 2002 in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the TRIA was meant as a temporary measure to afford firms protection against terrorist attacks while the insurance industry developed its own means of offering similar products privately. The act was extended in 2005 for a further two years. Discussions surrounding a longer-term extension have grown following the most recent report of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, which concluded that a private market for terrorism reinsurance is virtually non-existent.
Government policymakers insist the new extension will “help spur the further development of a private market for terrorism risk insurance”. Opponents argue that the insurance industry has had five years already to come up with a private alternative, and that its failure to do so suggests it is not interested in developing private instruments.
“The Administration has frequently stated the need for three critical elements in TRIA reauthorisation: the programme should remain temporary and short-term, with no expansion, and a continued increase of private-sector retention. Today’s effort to extend TRIA does not meet these standards for an improved market and we strongly oppose this bill,” said Treasury assistant secretary for financial institutions, David Nason.
“We are particularly disappointed with the Committee’s decision to extend the programme for 15 additional years. This extension runs counter to the public policy goal of reducing and eventually eliminating the federal government’s role in the terrorism insurance market, and it sends the wrong message to the market-place for a programme that was intended to be temporary,” Nason added.
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.
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 info@risk.net
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 info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Industry calls for major rethink of Basel III rules
Isda AGM: Divergence on implementation suggests rules could be flawed, bankers say
Saudi Arabia poised to become clean netting jurisdiction
Isda AGM: Netting regulation awaiting final approvals from regulators
Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites
Isda AGM: All in-scope banks opt for standardised approach to market risk; Nomura eyes IMA in 2025
CFTC chair backs easing of G-Sib surcharge in Basel endgame
Isda AGM: Fed’s proposed surcharge changes could hike client clearing cost by 80%
UK investment firms feeling the heat on prudential rules
Signs firms are falling behind FCA’s expectations on wind-down and liquidity risk management
The American way: a stress-test substitute for Basel’s IRRBB?
Bankers divided over new CCAR scenario designed to bridge supervisory gap exposed by SVB failure
Industry warns CFTC against rushing to regulate AI for trading
Vote on workplan pulled amid calls to avoid duplicating rules from other regulatory agencies
Bank of Communications moves early to meet TLAC requirements
China Construction Bank becomes last China G-Sib to release TLAC plans
Most read
- Top 10 operational risks for 2024
- Top 10 op risks: third parties stoke cyber risk
- Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites