I think it would be utter madness for insurers to cover potentially devastating nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological terrorist attacks.

It's bad enough the industry is forced to offer coverage for "conventional" terrorist events (if you could call flying jets into buildings "conventional"), but to willingly assume the fallout (literally) from an attack using a weapon of mass destruction would be a huge mistake.

I understand many insurers--perhaps desperate for a long-term extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act's federal backstop--believe that unless they sign on for NBCR exposures, Congress and the White House won't continue the reinsurance program beyond its Dec. 31 expiration.

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
NOT FOR REPRINT

© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more inforrmation visit Asset & Logo Licensing.