[lbo-talk] Should we get used paying for the "smaller" catastrophic acts?

Leigh Meyers leighcmeyers at gmail.com
Sat Jul 9 08:11:31 PDT 2005


Subtitled: The current terrorism insurance marketplace

(Business... politics... poverty... and oppression...)

JURIST - Paper Chase

Thursday, June 30, 2005

White House opposes extending terrorism insurance law Holly Manges Jones at 9:31 PM ET

[JURIST] The Bush administration indicated Thursday that it is against extending the current Terrorism Risk Insurance Act [PDF] when it expires at the end of the year, saying it was meant to be temporary.

The law was enacted after 9/11 and offered government aid to insure against losses as a result of terrorist attacks, mainly for large construction projects. US Treasury Secretary John Snow [official profile] released a report [PDF] saying that an extension would "crowd out innovation" [press release] and hinder private development, while Senator Charles Schumer [official website], a supporter of the extension, criticized the report as being "slanted" [press release] and said it will be difficult for large projects to go forward without the insurance.

The White House will, however, consider an extension if the act is amended to reflect higher deductibles and an increase in the size of the types of catastrophic events that would be covered. Insurers have joined with a coalition of businesses and industry members in saying that the Treasury report does not reflect the current terrorism insurance marketplace. AP has more.

Link: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/06/white-house-opposes-extending.php



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list