The House has crafted a “backwards approach” to legislationproviding a federal backstop to terrorism risk insurance, Sen.Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. said today.

Schumer add the legislation reported out by the House FinancialServices Committee will make it harder to insure and guaranteefinancing for job-creating building projects across thecountry.

Moreover, it “fails to provide the long-term certainty thatdevelopers and business owners need,” Schumer says.

Most of the insurance-industry reaction voiced strong supportfor the Senate version of the bill while applauding the House panelfor at least moving the ball forward.

Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and politicalaffairs at the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies,says, “At the beginning of this Congress, the question being askedwas whether this program should even be reauthorized. Today'sfavorable vote on a five-year TRIA reauthorization bill out of theFinancial Services Committee shows just how far we have come.”

However, he says, NAMIC has “serious concerns” about some of theprovisions in the House bill that, if not addressed, could severelycurtail some companies' access to the program and significantlydisrupt the currently competitive marketplace for terrorisminsurance coverage.

In particular, according to Grande, the House bill dramaticallyincreases the program trigger for non-NBCR events. “It has beensuggested that this will further protect taxpayers and maximizeprivate-sector capital in the market for terrorism insurance,however, this is simply not the case,” he says.

“The result would be reduced competition and a greaterconcentration of risk as small- and medium-sized regional orsingle-state insurers are driven out of the terrorism insurancemarket.”

Leigh Ann Pusey, president and CEO of the American InsuranceAssociation, called the House FSC decision “a significant stepforward,” and urged “the House to maintain its swift legislativepace on TRIA.”

The Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism and the IndependentInsurance Agents and Brokers made the same request.

Nat Wienecke, senior vice president, government relations at theProperty Casualty Insurers Association of America, called onCongress “to ensure that any increases to the trigger and co-sharenot be so high or so steep that they inhibit the availability andaffordability of terrorism insurance.”

The National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA)says it will continue to advocate for a lower trigger level toensure the widest possible availability and affordability ofterrorism insurance for consumers. “It is important to keep theprogram at a point where all insurers, small and large, have anopportunity to participate and are not priced out,” says JonGentile, PIA national director of federal affairs.

Katherine Lugar, president/CEO of the American Hotel &Lodging Association, says her members have “significant concernswith the bill in its current form,” and that, “Ultimately, we hopethe final legislation will more closely reflect the bipartisan billthat was approved unanimously by the Senate Banking Committee.”

Lugar cites the need to improve provisions related to federalrecoupment from policy holders, program triggers, and thebifurcation of conventional and non-conventional attacks when thelegislation comes before the full House ofRepresentatives.

Ken Crerar, president/CEO of the Council for Insurance Agentsand Brokers, says in a note to members that CIAB “agrees with thosewho believe the government shouldn't be in the business ofproviding insurance coverage that private industry canprovide.”

Crerar says finding the right mix of deductibles, co-pays andtriggers “is tricky and sensitive,” and that “there will inevitablybe back-and-forth actions in the coming weeks in both chambers, andwe are encouraged that Congress will ultimately act to avoid theexpiration” of the current TRIA law.”