Boston was not terrorism

[hootinholler]

I don't care what anyone says, this is how it must be officially. You see if it officially becomes terrorism nearly every insurance policy will have the Terrorism exclusion clause kick in. This was mentioned on NPR tonight, a few minutes ago.

So well it was ugly, but not terrorism.

[peacebird]

1. Help? Will it totally screw anyone injured, or any business damaged, by the explosions?

Does ruling it as terrorism mean insurance will not have to pay?

[hootinholler]

7. Depends on the policy.

Yes if there is an exclusion for terrorism, they won't have to pay.

[peacebird]

9. Sheesh, another way for insurance to take our money and provide no coverage. Sweet.

Is it just me, or do others find it ironic that exclusions are carved out for BOTH terrorism AND acts of god.....

And ONLY for those.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Terrorism is considered an act of war

Which is an exclusion too

[former9thward]

2. As President Obama said it was an act of terrorism.

What else would it be -- disorderly conduct?

[elehhhhna]

3. No way the insurance companies would even try that.

PR nightmare.

If they could, they would. But they won't.

[hootinholler]

6. They will.

That's why they have that clause.

[dballance]

20. Oh Yes They Will

I like your optimism on this. But, being the cynical, jaded person I am I believe they'll try it. Particularly the ones that insure the businesses that sustained damage. I don't know that the medical policies have a terrorist exception clause. I got the impression it was for property damage insurance. Denying a claim from a business isn't quite as heart-wrenching, ratings-boosting TV as denying a claim from a human.

[elehhhhna]

29. L&T will go to court and since this isn't state-sponsored terrorism

their insurer will settle without going to trial.

[Major Nikon]

4. When someone uses violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political goal...

It's terrorism.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

8. But as long as it is not classed as such...

Those wounded can keep coverage. It is what it is called on the police reports is what the insurance companies care about. And no, they don't care about PR. They have enough spin doctors to re-spin it.

[Major Nikon]

13. You're assuming the BAA has no such coverage

Im not so sure that's a good assumption.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

21. Assuming that they do is not a good one either. n/t

[Major Nikon]

23. Organizing a large public event without it would be monumentally stupid

So I can't agree.

[PDJane]

5. Yes. Terrorism has more than just revenge behind it.

[geckosfeet]

10. Just a friendly little bombing? is that it?

Absurd.

By the perpetrators own words, it was terrorism.

[Major Nikon]

11. I don't see why

With most, if not all insurance companies, you can buy additional coverage to cover terrorism. I opted out of the terrorism coverage on my airplane because the likelihood of such an event affecting me is extremely remote. I doubt if the organizers of the marathon would have declined such coverage, and even if they did it would simply transfer more liability back to them.

[justiceischeap]

14. There was an article on DU just a few days ago

about how the hospitals and insurance companies were going to help those injured in the Boston bombing. So, until I see proof otherwise, I'm going to take the hospitals and insurance companies at their word. I'm sure, if either bail, it will be the insurance companies.

[Poll_Blind]

15. I don't know why your OP isn't getting more recs. Now, I'm not sayin your...

...particular argument is the strongest position on the reason this should be classified as something other than terrorism, but I basically agree for other reasons.

The DOJ definition of an act of terrorism (like 9/11 style terrorism) is quite specific. I don't have the links handy but I did research this a bit and it's why terrorism charges aren't being leveled left and right against murderers. I'm not talking about "making terroristic threats" or whatever, I'm talking about the charge that kicks in the Patriot act and all that shit. A lot of it has to do with connections to organizations on the FTO list that the DOJ keeps.

PB

[hootinholler]

24. I'm just trying to raise awareness on this.

It beats my normal invisibility.

[Fumesucker]

33. You are one of my favorite DUers, Hoot..

[Leslie Valley]

16. Right, and Nidal Hasan shooting up Ft Hood was just "work place violence"

Thus no Purple Heart for the wounded.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/02/fort_hood_victim_denied_purple_hearts_over_work_place_violence_label.html

Call it what it is, nobody is fooled.

[Poll_Blind]

18. And Klebold and Harris shooting up Columbine? Do you think that's the same thing as well?

I'm really wondering if that does or doesn't, in your opinion.

PB

[Leslie Valley]

26. I honestly have never heard that Klebold and Harris had been converted

to radical Islam by some Radical Imam and were shouting Allah Akbar as they shot up their classmates in revenge for the worldview that the Muslim religion is regarded as violent, like the Bomber Brothers did.


However if it's your claim that that's the case then ya, they were terrorists too.

[cyberswede]

34. Are you saying that perpetrators of terrorist acts must be Muslim?

Or am I misunderstanding your post?

[jazzimov]

17. If an insurance company has a terrorism exclusion, then

they are complicit. The point of "terrorism" is to strike terror and fear into the hearts of a particular group. If an insurance company has an exclusion clause, then they are adding to the "fear".

If insurance companies are offering additional coverage for an additional price, then they are still contributing to the "terror" and "fear" and they are complicit with the terrorists.

I recommend that everyone who holds an insurance policy with a "terrorist exclusion" clause that payed extra for terrorist coverage in addition to everyone affected by terrorist acts that were not covered enjoin a class action suit.

I am not affected, therefore I cannot take part in the class action suit. But I recommend that all who are affected do so.

[customerserviceguy]

19. Does this clause apply to health insurance?

I don't seem to recall a lot of property damage from the bombs.

[hootinholler]

22. A week plus of loss of business for every business in the exclusion zone.

Adds up quick.

[customerserviceguy]

37. A week?

Yes, this happened on a Monday afternoon, but was called off when asshat #2 was captured on Friday evening. If it hadn't been for the lockdown hysteria, it probably wouldn't have been for more than a couple of days.

Most insurance policies have deductables that would encompass 2-5 days worth of losses. Businesses self-insure for weather-oriented losses, such as blizzards and the like.

[FailureToCommunicate]

25. Maybe you have not been listening to the news. THis has been label terrorism now, by all. Do you

really think "they" decided to call it terrorism because it would allow insurance companies to renege on paying out claims?

Wow.

By the way, Bostonians have kicked into a fund to aid victims above and beyond any insurance issues.
It's Called One Fund and they have already raised over $20 million dollars. I am sure they would love to have more kind souls add to it...

https://secure.onefundboston.org/page/-/donate8.html

In addition, there have been relief funds set up in the name of nearly every individual victim which also are swelling fast with contributions...

[hootinholler]

27. Apparently what you think I think isn't what I actually think

I said nothing about motives. Just what the official classification needs to be.

It's great the people are being taken care of. Are the relief funds covering any loss of business claims? How many businesses in the cordoned off area will fail if they don't get an insurance payment?

[FailureToCommunicate]

31. The relief funds are for the victims, who's lived have forever changed from this.

The losses to businesses is a somewhat varied story. ALL the businesses so far have said they will take care of their employees lost wages. As far as their lost business,well, people are keen to flood back into the area and patronize those places again. We have blizzards that shut down the city for periods of times and, well it's just goes with the territory. (There are so many great things about Boston in general that a few winter weather issues are not that much of a deal)

So, yes, folks here are hopeful for continued recovery. If insurance companies want to be jerks about it and withhold reimbursement because of that designation, well, would it really surprise anyone?

[elehhhhna]

28. also,iirc health ins. doesn't have a terror exclusion --

property insurance does.

[Savannahmann]

30. It's an interesting take.

I remember after Katrina, the insurance companies would decide that the water had entered the house from the ground floor, which was flooding, and the subsequent damage was secondary, like the roof falling in. If the homeowner did not have flood insurance, they were not covered.

As an aside, I was deeply ashamed when Top Gear drove to New Orleans, and the devastation had not been fixed in years. We were a world wide laughingstock.

[Bonhomme Richard]

32. I believe my business insurance policy allows you to pay more...

to cover terrorism. You have to sign off that you do not want the coverage.

[El Fuego]

35. It's arguably not terrorism under 18 USC § 2332b (the federal terrorism law)

18 USC § 2332b defines a terrorist act as "... involving conduct transcending national boundaries," and this includes direct attacks on the U.S. government (e.g. Timothy McVeigh).

The dead older brother was a foreign national, so his actions “transcended national boundaries.” But the younger brother was a U.S. citizen. They didn’t directly attack the U.S. government. His defense lawyers will no doubt argue that he shouldn’t be charged with terrorism under federal law, and that his crime is run of the mill murder. In this case, the difference is the death penalty.

[uppityperson]

36. The definition of a word depends on who is using it how. Hence this could be, and could not be, at

the same time, terrorism.

Insurance doesn't have to pay if it is "terrorism"? That sucks.