Last week, putting quote marks around the war on terrorism in my blog posting prompted heated discussion about whether insurers should pay 9/11-type claims if indeed we are at war with an organized group dedicated to killing our people and destroying our property. I took your comments to that posting along with my responses and used them in my editorial column for the Oct. 16 National Underwriter–both to give the issue a wider jury (our 75,000 print subscribers) as well as generate further debate. Click below to read the rest of my column and then feel free to continue the discussion under “Comments.”

In my postings and Oct. 9 magazine column, I accused the Bush administration of hypocrisy for hyping a war on terrorism while trying to jettison the Terrorism Risk Insurance Acts reinsurance safety net, even as insurers are unfairly discouraged or prevented from denying such losses under the standard war risk exclusion.

I got an earful, and responded in kind.

One blog reader, James, wrote: I am not sure why there is hypocrisy on the part of the administrationWhether they call this a war (which I happen to agree with) makes no difference as to how the policy forms respond. Policies pay based on the facts of the situation and the policy wording.

I explained that I blasted the president because he engaged our military in a worldwide shooting war against terrorism, yet wont acknowledge we're in a real war for the sake of a reasonable exclusion for uninsurable risks. If the current terrorism environment doesn't meet the letter of the exclusion, it certainly reflects its spirit.

A second blog reader, Carl, predicted that if a permanent TRIA solution is not foundthe war exclusions will get a broad rewriting to include any foreign-based conspiracy derived from a political or religious agenda. I said thats fine if the states allow them to rewrite the exclusion–which is doubtful, I believe.

A third blog responder, Ken, wrote that there is a marked difference between the use and meaning of the term war in an insurance policy exclusion context as compared to its use and meaning in political rhetoric. There would equally be no valid exclusion based upon the singular fact that a loss was caused in the midst of a war on drugs or a war on poverty. Ken warned that we must be cautious, when considering such actual coverage issues, not to mix our policy term apples with our politically rallying oranges.”

To Ken, I responded that there is a big difference between a rhetorical “war” on drugs or poverty, and the very real “war” on terrorism, which involves our military forces engaging in live combat, and the possibility of a nuclear, chemical or biological attack facing us. I believe such a threat should meet the definition of “war” for insurance purposes.

On that point, a blog responder code-named Farm Boy wrote: I think all you folks need to first decide on a definition of war, and then base your comments on that definition! Webster's College Dictionary shows the definition of war to be open armed conflict between countries or between factions within the same country.

I suggested that Webster should update its definition of “war” in light of the new threats we face from organized terrorists. While terrorist attacks do not appear to qualify as “war” under Webster's current definition, 9/11 certainly felt like another Pearl Harbor to me, and now we have soldiers dying abroad and another devastating attack always looming at home.

Blog responder Kay wrote: I think the original decision not to utilize the war risk exclusion was made because the p-c companies did not want to suffer the public outcry that probably would have resultedNow that the country has had time to adjust to the post-9/11 world, perhaps it is time to consider whether the exclusion should be applied for terrorism.

I couldnt agree more. How about you?

Special Reports /

When Is War Not &quot;War&quot;?

Related Stories

Recommended For You

When Is War Not "War"?