Although President George W. Bush's representative made it clear today that he does not want to see the federal reinsurance backstop provided by the expiring Terrorism Risk Insurance Act extended for a decade, let alone made permanent, I say he wouldn't dare veto a long-term extension bill if push came to shove.
As reported by our own Dave Postal (click here for his article about the bill's introduction, and here for industry reaction), David Nason, assistant secretary of the Treasury for financial institutions, told a House subcommittee that it is important that the [TRIA] program remain temporary and short-term,” emphasizing that “from both a market and economic perspective, it would be better to have no TRIA than a bad TRIA.”
He's got to kidding, right? Support for the House TRIA bill–H.R. 2761–is certainly not unanimous (we'll deal with the objections over mandatory coverage for nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological attacks on Monday), but no one in the insurance industry or the corporate buyer community objects to keeping TRIA's backstop around as long as possible.
Recommended For You
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
