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

Schumer add the legislation reported out by the House Financial Services Committee will make it harder to insure and guarantee financing for job-creating building projects across the country.

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

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

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

However, he says, NAMIC has “serious concerns” about some of the provisions in the House bill that, if not addressed, could severely curtail some companies' access to the program and significantly disrupt the currently competitive marketplace for terrorism insurance coverage.

In particular, according to Grande, the House bill dramatically increases the program trigger for non-NBCR events. “It has been suggested that this will further protect taxpayers and maximize private-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 greater concentration of risk as small- and medium-sized regional or single-state insurers are driven out of the terrorism insurance market.”

Leigh Ann Pusey, president and CEO of the American Insurance Association, called the House FSC decision “a significant step forward,” and urged “the House to maintain its swift legislative pace on TRIA.”

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

Nat Wienecke, senior vice president, government relations at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, called on Congress “to ensure that any increases to the trigger and co-share not be so high or so steep that they inhibit the availability and affordability of terrorism insurance.”

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

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

Lugar cites the need to improve provisions related to federal recoupment from policy holders, program triggers, and the bifurcation of conventional and non-conventional attacks when the legislation comes before the full House of Representatives.

Ken Crerar, president/CEO of the Council for Insurance Agents and Brokers, says in a note to members that CIAB “agrees with those who believe the government shouldn't be in the business of providing insurance coverage that private industry can provide.”

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

Special Reports /

Industry Groups Happy with TRIA Progress, if Not the Current House Version

Related Stories

Recommended For You