UK Rats-Got terror?

[Matthew X]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4013 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks-legacy/attachments/19990421/dafa8a82/attachment.txt>