"ACT OF WAR'

I don't know much of anything about anything,but if the proponents of calling these terrorist actions 'acts of war' prevail, then wouldn't that allow many insurance claims to be denied under the "acts of war" clause?

I also heard something about this. I believe this is why there has not been a declaration of war.

I don't think what various people happen to call it will have anything to do with interpreting the particular policies out there. Each policy should have its exclusions and definitions set out. Litigation over coverage issues can be complex, detailed, and interesting. It is always just between the insured and insurer. But I don't know how war exclusions are interpreted or defined. A lot of times, particular language is used in policies that has been tested through litigation, so there is often a solid basis for a given interpretation. But again, I really don't know how the war exclusion will play out. Many policies also have a terrorism exclusion too, so the war exclusion might not matter.


I heard the WTC had terrorism coverage too, FWIW.

Brilliant thinking, son.

Yep,when it comes to playing off claims,it seems insurance companies will latch on to any excuse or look for a plausible reason not to.

The insurance companies in question have already announced that they will not invoke the "act of war" clause.

Good article in the Independent about this very point: