CIAB Shows Businesses Rejecting Terrorism Coverage
March 2003
Insurers are offering terrorism coverage,
but many U.S. commercial interests are not buying because they do not consider
themselves targets and/or due to the high cost of coverage. Some high-risk properties
nonetheless are finding the market tight. These are the findings of the Council
of Insurance Agents & Brokers survey of its members, the top tier of the nation's
insurance brokers who collectively write 80 percent of the commercial property/casualty
premiums annually.
by The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers
Washington, D.C.
Insurers are offering terrorism coverage, but many buildings, businesses,
and other commercial interests across the United States are not buying the insurance
because they do not consider themselves targets of terrorism, the cost is too
high, or both, according to a special terrorism insurance survey conducted by
The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB).
Brokers noted, however, that in the days leading up to the war in Iraq, more
businesses were buying coverage out of fear that terrorists may retaliate for
U.S. actions in that region.
Nearly 60 percent of brokers responding to the survey said fewer than 10
percent of their small commercial property/casualty accounts and fewer than
20 percent of medium-sized accounts have purchased terrorism coverage offered
to them by insurance carriers. Of the brokers handling large accounts, 48 percent
said fewer than one in five of the biggest customers have bought terrorism coverage.
The CIAB survey, conducted in the same manner as The Council's quarterly
report on commercial property/casualty market trends, also provides the first
national sampling of the cost of terrorism coverage. Most of the small and medium
accounts are being assessed 10 percent of premium, while large accounts typically
are paying 20 percent of premium or less.
The Council represents the top tier of the nation's insurance brokers who
collectively write 80 percent of the commercial property/casualty premiums annually.
Council President Ken A. Crerar said responses of brokers to a number of
open-ended questions indicate that despite the passage of the federal terrorism
insurance backstop at the end of last year, there are some significant gaps
in terrorism coverage around the country.
"On balance, the market is significantly more stable with the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act (TRIA) than without it. However, cost and availability of coverage
remain key issues," Crerar said. "Small, relatively low-profile accounts
seem to be able to find terrorism coverage at a reasonable cost, but many
are opting not to buy it because they don't think they are at risk. On the
other hand, some of the riskier operations, with real exposures, choose to
do without coverage because of the cost."
"There are a number of market challenges that remain," Crerar noted. "The
full set of regulations for TRIA implementation are not yet in place. We
have been operating for several months under the threat of a war that has
now begun, and insurers still face significant financial risk under the
legislation. So it is not altogether surprising that gaps in coverage
continue to exist. We will watch the marketplace closely in coming months
and expect more stability and predictability in time."
The bulk of insurers' losses from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
were covered by reinsurance. But following the September 11 attacks, much of
the reinsurance market for terrorism coverage disappeared. Last November, Congress
passed TRIA to fill some of that gap by putting a federal safety net under commercial
insurers for terrorist attacks for 3 years. Under TRIA, insurance carriers are
required to offer coverage for foreign terrorism and certified acts to their
customers, but insurers must absorb a portion of the loss from acts of terrorism
before the government backstop clicks in. The backstop does not cover domestic
terrorism.
The Council's survey indicates that while carriers want to take advantage
of the higher rates now being charged for commercial property/casualty insurance,
they don't particularly want the added exposure to perceived terrorist targets.
"They have shown concern for offering the [terrorism] coverage because they
are not being reinsured [in the existing marketplace]," said a broker from the
Southwest. "However, they still want to write business and take advantage of
the higher rates, so they are taking the risk net."
"When a carrier does not want the exposure, they are pricing coverage at
100 percent of the property rate so that no clients elect the coverage," said
a broker from the Southeast who handles large accounts.
"If there is a terror exposure, the coverage is difficult to obtain and expensive,"
added another respondent.
A broker from the Northeast said location of risk is key to the terror quotes.
"Risks in Manhattan can run as high as 100 percent in the outer boroughs, or
out of the city, 5-10 percent of the property premium," he said.
But in other areas, the market is not that clear.
"There is great variance with no apparent logic," said a broker from the
Midwest. "In some cases (for small and medium accounts), there is virtually
no charge, and in others, over 100 percent. One insurer offered a local city
coverage at about 105 percent, and the county in which the city is located
at 2 percent."
In addition to cost and the belief that they are not vulnerable to terrorist
attacks, another reason some commercial interests are giving for not buying
terrorism insurance is that the coverage is not broad enough to do any good,
the survey showed.
"Many larger insureds don't feel that TRIA coverage is adequate [for covering
their exposures]," said a broker from the Northeast.
"Nuclear, biological agents exclusions negate coverage," said a broker from
the Pacific Northwest.
The TRIA covers terrorist acts sponsored only by foreign interests, and CIAB
survey respondents said many of their clients do not understand that. They said
the market for domestic terrorism is mixed. Some carriers are offering coverage—and
in some cases, coverage for no cost if the risk is not perceived to be high.
But other carriers are excluding coverage if they can for the riskier situations.
"Companies … are not offering coverage for domestic terrorism freely," said
one broker in the Northeast, "and you have to be very proactive to obtain it
if the client asks for it. Availability is limited. Pricing is expensive.
Limits are on the low side."
"We are finding that many insurers are not expressing concern about domestic
terrorism. Foreign terrorism is the key issue for them, and they are not charging
additional premium for the domestic terrorism risk. Other insurers are attempting
to exclude it," reported another broker from the same region.
Although 90 percent of the brokers said they have not seen an appreciable
increase in nonrenewals, and an equal number said insurers are giving customers
the option to buy terrorism coverage, some high-risk properties nonetheless
are finding the market tight.
"Carriers are managing their limits down to the block or refusing to quote
if the hazard is a high risk," said one broker from the Northeast.
A broker from the Pacific Northwest said his nonrenewals have involved "proximity
to high-rise, high visibility properties such a government buildings or in high
risk areas," while another said he has experienced problems with airports, landmark
buildings, and anything within a six-block radius of those entities.
Asked to detail the sort of properties, cities, and regions of the country
that are emerging as high-risk in the eyes of insurers, the brokers' responses
spanned the country, east to west and north to south.
Listed as problem areas were virtually every major metropolitan area including
New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and its suburbs, Boston,
Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Philadelphia, Denver, Seattle,
Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa.
Structures, businesses and locations listed as encountering problems securing
terrorism coverage included some of the most highly visible properties: marine
and petroleum storage terminals, petrochemical plants, nuclear plants and biotechnology
firms; large office buildings and mercantile centers; trophy buildings; hospitals,
government buildings, and military bases; bridges; stores, hotels, and restaurants
in city centers; high-rise apartments and skyscrapers; stadiums, concert halls,
and convention centers; and high-profile businesses, such as technology firms
and military contractors.
Note: See other terrorism articles
on IRMI.com.
The Council of Insurance Agents &
Brokers is the voice of the market leaders and the premier association
for commercial insurance and employee benefits intermediaries in the United
States and abroad. From its headquarters in Washington, D.C.—with programs conducted
throughout the nation and world—The Council represents the largest, most productive,
and most profitable of all commercial insurance agencies and brokerage firms.
Only the top one percent of all agents and brokers qualify. The Council's members
in more than 3,000 locations, place 80 percent—well over $90 billion—of all
U.S. insurance products and services protecting business, industry, government
and the public at-large, and they administer billions of dollars in employee
benefits.
Since 1913, The Council of Insurance Agents + Brokers has
worked in the best interests of its members, securing innovative solutions and
creating new market opportunities at home and abroad. Web site: http://www.ciab.com.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author’s employer or IRMI. This article does not purport
to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice
is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.