Lurking in your litter Horror movie warns of Britain's rising tide of rats. Rats: the story in links http://www.guardian.co.uk/ Got Terror? Terror all around us By Jamie Walker 02aug02 MILLIONS of Australians are being told their home, business and car insurance will not cover acts of terrorism, provoking warnings from consumer groups last night that the new rules could void normal cover. Claims for "innocuous" accidents could be turned down, said consumer rights lawyer Chris Field. And shop owners take note: next time S-11 style protesters turn up or a political demonstration turns ugly, the insurance might no longer cover a brick though the window. The nation's biggest general insurers, including Insurance Australia Group, Suncorp and Zurich, are attaching terrorism exclusion clauses to new policies and renewal notices in the run-up to the first anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks in the US. But the insurers have split over the definition of an act of terrorism, with Suncorp refusing to nominate a specific set of circumstances on the basis that "it would cause more problems than it would solve". The definitions from IAG and Zurich are so broad that Australian Consumers Association spokeswoman Gail Kennedy said they put "real question marks over what will be covered". Mr Field, executive director of the Melbourne-based Consumer Law Centre, said terrorism clauses could strike out the cover for property damage caused during political demonstrations, protests and rallies. "It is incredibly wide ... and might involve innocuous things that are perfectly legitimate in the political process," he said. Zurich's home insurance policies now exclude all acts of terrorism, "including but not limited to use of force or violence". While the exclusion cites possible political, religious and ideological reasons for a terror attack, it says any action intended to instil public fear will be excluded from cover. IAG, which trades principally as NRMA Insurance, has a similar terrorism definition, referring to acts designed to influence the government or "intimidate the public or a section of the public". Spokesman Jason Falinski said the company had been sending notices to policy-holders since July 1 on the insistence of its international reinsurers, Munich Reinsurance and Swiss Reinsurance. The exclusion clause was "driven entirely by the reinsurers" and was a condition of their contracts with IAG being renewed, he said. It would apply broadly to commercial policies, but the exclusion on comprehensive motor insurance and home insurance would be limited specifically to biological, chemical and nuclear attacks. As the nation's biggest general insurer, IAG has about 3.4 million policy-holders. Fifth-placed Zurich defended the terrorism exclusion clause, saying without it the company's reinsurers would no longer provide risk cover. Insurance Council of Australia public affairs manager Sandie Watson said policy wording was generally up to individual insurers, but in this case had been on an "across the board" response to September 11. Policy-holders had recourse to a free complaint system or could take their case to court. "There are very clear boundaries for what is an act of terror or an act of vandalism," she said. But a spokesman for Suncorp, the nation's second-biggest general insurer with up to 2 million policies under its own name and subsidiary GIO, said it would leave that decision to the courts in the event of a terrorism attack here.