Lurking in your litter
   Horror movie warns of Britain's rising tide of rats.
   Rats: the story in links
   [1]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.

References

   1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/