Terrorism Cover for High Value Residential Strata

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image17327571I have posted a couple of articles of late, in response to the G20 meeting that is going to be held in Brisbane shortly. I just want to give brokers and body corporate managers a gentle reminder. With commercial strata, the insurance that is arranged attracts a terrorism levy, with the levy going into the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation. With residential strata up to $50 million in value, the policies that I have looked at typically provide terrorism cover underwritten by the insurer issuing the policy, but not always. Sometimes it is a blanket exclusion and where the residential strata is valued at more than $50 million, there is no cover on the policies that I have read. A typical exclusion on such policies  reads:

Terrorism The following exclusions apply notwithstanding any provision to the contrary within this Policy or any endorsement to it: a. Subject to b. below, this Policy excludes and does not cover death, injury, illness, loss, Damage, destruction, liability, cost or expense directly or indirectly caused by, contributed to by, resulting from or arising out of or in connection with any Act of Terrorism, as defined below, regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any other sequence to the loss. b. Where the Total Sum Insured specified in the Schedule for Section 1 – Material Loss or Damage Insurance is $50,000,000 or less, exclusion a. above does not apply in relation to Section 1 – Material Loss or Damage Insurance only. Instead, the following exclusion will apply to that Section: This Policy will not cover death, injury, illness, loss, Damage, destruction, liability, cost or expense arising directly or indirectly out of or in any way connected with any Act of Terrorism, as defined below, arising directly or indirectly out of or in any way connected with biological, chemical, radioactive, or nuclear pollution or contamination or explosion.  c. Irrespective of exclusions a. or b. above, this Policy also excludes and does not cover death, injury, illness, loss, Damage, destruction, liability, cost or expense directly or indirectly caused by, contributed to by, resulting from, or arising out of or in connection with any action in controlling, preventing, suppressing, retaliating against, or responding to any Act of Terrorism. [emphasis mine]

As a result of this exclusion, or where it is a blanket exclusion, it may be necessary/prudent for stand alone terrorism cover to be arranged where there is any risk of loss or damage. Those located near the Brisbane G20 venue come immediately to mind. With this sort of risk and the values at stake, my advice is as it was yesterday, seek the advice of an experienced insurance broker. Thanks to Tony Purser of AustCover in Brisbane for initiating this post by reminding me of the risk.

Read Me View comments

A Reminder to Have Contents Insurance #insurance

Chicago fireMy daughter Susan received the following text last night from a study buddy from her university in the US.

“A fire started in the building next to mine and spread to my flat. I was awake and got out with my cat but the damage is terrible and I have no where to live.


Other students at the university came to her rescue for the night but she will have to move back with her parents who live interstate temporarily.

Regrettably, Vanessa has no insurance to assist with additional accommodation expenses, pet accommodation let alone the loss of her library of text books, clothes, furniture or other personal items. Like a lot of students she is getting help from her parents who will now be asked to finance her all over again.

All this could have been avoided, and with the added protection of public and personal liability insurance, for under $4.50 per week which is what it cost Susan to have her ‘stuff’ insured with the ‘top’ level cover!

If you are living in an apartment or you have friends or relatives that are, please give them a gentle nudge to arrange some contents insurance. It really provides piece of mind.

As always, if in doubt please speak to an insurance broker.

Read Me View comments

Exclusions for War, Rebellion and the like Under Travel Policies

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image14630865Some travel agents are advising their clients that their travel policies do not cover any losses arising through the terrible events leading up to the loss of Malaysian Airlines ML17.

A week or so back, I looked at exclusions in respect of acts of terrorism and the war exclusion was raised today at a conference I am speaking at. (ANZIIF’s Industry Insight 2014 in Redcliffe, Queensland).

As with the terrorism exclusion, travel policies do differ. The better quality ones in the Corporate Travel area have a very narrow exclusion. An example taken this time from Zurich Corporate Travel policy reads:

Excludes (a) war civil war invasion insurrection revolution use of military power or usurpation of government or military power in Australia or an Insured Person’s country of residence or in Afghanistan Chechnya Iraq North Korea or Somalia (b) civil unrest under Section 4 – Travel Disruption in circumstances where the civil unrest was in existence or there had been published warning that such events were likely to occur prior to the Insured Person booking their journey, unless otherwise agreed with Insurer cover ceases after the 7th day of any outbreak of war or civil war within Iraq Afghanistan North Korea Somalia or Chechnya – p22/35/37

Some Corporate Travel policies and all the private travel and credit card policies I was able to review during breaks in the conference had a blanket exclusion for war.  A typical wording reads:

War or warlike activities, invasion, acts of foreign enemies, civil war, revolution, insurrection, or act of military power.

Based on what is being reported on the television, it would appear that policies with this or a similar exclusion would not cover any losses, that is: loss of life, repatriation of the bodies, baggage or anything else from the ML17 incident.

These insurers are taking the stance that this is a political event that government should be responsible for.

As a general rule of thumb, a good Corporate Travel Policy offers the broadest coverage.

It again shows the importance of knowing the coverage you have or are recommending. Another good reminder to use PolicyComparison.com.


Read Me View comments

Look Forward to Catching up with Those at the ANZIIF Insights

Capture 3I have been invited to speak twice tomorrow at the ANZIIF Insights being held in Brisbane tomorrow, 28th July 2014.

My topics are “Avoiding the Pitfalls of the ISR” and “Social Responsibility -v- Claims Leakage“. The second is designed to be challenging and spark debate.  Both sessions will run for 90 minutes.

I look forward to catching up with those that are attending in my old home town.

Read Me View comments

Blog Question on the need for Professional Indemnity Insurance

remote controlled home alarm systemThe question put to me was:

Hi Allan

We have a client whose activities include, Alarm installation (no consulting, manufacturing or importing alarms).

Where does the client stand legally if they are not charging a fee for advice or recommendations and there are no reports issued? Would you still recommend a PI policy?

I had a look at LMI’s Risk Coach, which says the exposure is significant when they are involved in design, my assumption would be that anytime they are installing an alarm; there is a design component when it comes to the placement of the sensors etc.  Is that correct?

As an example if the client made an error with respect to the placement of a motion sensor and a burglar was able to enter the premises without triggering the alarm which resulted in damage to or loss of property could you rely on a liability policy to cover this? 

Are there other exposures that require a PI policy, when there is no fee for  charged for advice?

I’m perplexed!


Zoe [surname and email provided

My reply was as follows:

I can understand you being perplexed. I am too.

Traditionally, where there was advice with a product and/or advice where there was no fee charged, then a Combined General Liability (“CGL”) policy would be sufficient. This seems to be changing and, quite often, lawyers and claims officers seem to be taking a different approach than the underwriters and clients and brokers can be caught out.

As explained in RiskCoach, the usual questions in a ‘fact finder’ come needs analysis would be as set out below.

There are, of course, the usual steps to take as follows:

  1.  Ascertain exactly what they do?
  2. Do they prepare a specification and quote?
  3. Ascertain how they bill out the charges for their services and how do they describe their services. (Is the word design anywhere?)
  4. Do they have a contract and what does that say about liability?
  5. Is the contract signed by both parties?
  6. What does the contract say about insurance?

From your question, you seem to have covered most of this.

It seems quite clear that an alarm installer would need to prepare a plan or a design to install a system and this is the same as an electrician doing wiring. The electrician’s work may need to be signed off by another party, in many cases, an electrical engineer if it is a business premises.

In this case, the Liability policy will cover Personal Injury, property damage and advertising liability if the insurer agrees that the work does not require professional qualifications. However, I can imagine that there is a strong possibility of financial loss claims, if the system should go down for whatever reason and whilst there might not be a major issue in relation to what is, say, property damage that is claimable under a CGL policy, one has to be concerned that there could be claims for financial loss outside of that covered by a CGL Policy. This could be where they suffer financial loss because a customer moves his property away from a premises, because the system is not seen as capable of providing the appropriate degree of protection.

There is also the possibility, if they are operating a central watching service, that claims arising from the quality (or lack of) of the service mat ensue. as an ethical issue.  Having said this, they may be protected somewhat via contract and a disclaimer clause, but they, by their very nature, do have their limitations.

It might be one of those cases where you need to use a QBE Purpl policy, or something similar to read through and discuss with Insurers to get there assessment as to what covers are needed. My understanding is that QBE tend to not make Purpl available for what they class as high risk activities and this might be in that category. You would need to check with them.

CGU have something similar. Here is a link to a brochure on the CGU product. There are others out there as well, but these are the first two that come to mind. I would suggest you check LMI PolicyComparison for details of the coverage afforded by such products.

I think that a discussion with Jun Acance from CGU (I have always found Jun to be most helpful), or someone of equal standing as an underwriter could be useful, because there is also the nasty and conventional PI issue where the manufacturing exclusion could get in the way and the PI insurer argues it is a products liability matter.

The best answer is, if in doubt, have the client set up a design department as a separate legal entity and arrange PI for the design company. They might never have a claim, but this would allow them to sleep at night. This is a good risk management strategy for a large company, but not necessarily an inexpensive solution for a small entity.

I hope this helps, but it is a very difficult question.



Read Me 1

Thanks and without wishing to push the friendship, could I ask for more?

Survey Message Communication ConceptI would like to thank the just over 1,000 people that responded to our claims survey. I have closed this one off today and am now wading through the 240 page report that it has produced and will put the results up on ClaimsComparison.com.

I am sure insurers will find the results and some of the constructive commentary very beneficial. The only thing that (for some insurers) I will be asking is that they not shoot the messenger!

To keep the ClaimsComparison relevant and up to date we will need to carry out surveys every quarter or, if you prefer, you can complete it at any time, say any time a claim is completed and the system will keep the score as part of the quarterly results. Our next claims survey will be sent out in October.

In the meantime and without wishing to push the friendship, I am working with a software provider, Gratex, who specialise in systems for Underwriting Agencies, in gathering research that will ultimately provide better service etc to brokers and their customers.

A survey has been conducted of the Underwriting Agencies and now we are seeking input from insurance brokers to see if the perception of the Underwriting Agencies lines up with the view of brokers.

With this in mind, I would ask all insurance brokers to take a minute to complete the survey. I promise this is the last one I will ask for in the next three months. I do appreciate how busy everyone is, but your input does drive positive change and I urge you to have your say.

Here is a link to the survey: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1696856/Brokers-Survey

Read Me View comments

Blog Question on the Asbestos Exclusion

Asbestos Warning SignI received the following question: #insurance #liabilityinsurance #casualtyinsurance #asbestos

Hi Allan,

I am trying to establish when & how the asbestos exclusion clause was introduced to the Australian Insurance market. Any direction you may provide in this instance will be appreciated.
Kind Regards,

Andre [surname and email provided]

I wrote back to find out on what type of policy, as there are exclusions in both liability and in some property policies. Andre confirmed it was in liability policies that he was interested. I then replied as follows;

Hi Andre,

From memory, insurance companies began writing exclusions for asbestos in the 1980’s, around the same time that asbestos was finally banned in Australia, which was 1985.

The exclusion was originally driven by the reinsurance market, due to the frequency and increasingly massive awards that were being handed out to the unfortunate victims of the terrible disease(s) that breathing asbestos causes.

Asbestos was mined in Australia and was widely used for fire protection, insulation/lagging, brake pads and in building materials. It was a very popular building product, due to its properties of not being effected by white ants or vermin, rot, rust etc; particularly for buildings near the ocean or in corrosive environments.

The reality is that it is a great product, but for the terrible effect it has on people once it is breathed. Regrettably, the product is still causing illness and death to this day in Australia, including among those in the insurance industry, who came in contact with it often 20 or more years ago.

While it has been banned in Australia, asbestos is still in our community in most buildings that were built or renovated between the 1940’s and 1985, unless it has been specifically removed. Hence the health hazard to the public and, therefore, the exposure for insurers continues.

This is not so in all countries and there are parts of the world where the asbestos exclusion is not so harsh, as it is in Australia and cover at various types and levels have been able to be purchased from about 1990.

One thing that I am critical of with the typical Australian exclusion is that it is so all encompassing. A typical exclusion reads:

2. Asbestos

For any liability whatsoever for any claim or claims in respect of Personal Injury or Property Damage directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or in consequence of, or in any way involving asbestos, or any materials containing asbestos in whatever form or quantity. [emphasis mine]

Where I think this is going too far is say, someone such as a third party is up on an asbestos roof of a building and they fell through it, or off the roof for some reason and broke their arm. The owner of the building would have no cover to defend themselves against an action by the injured third party, nor would they have protection for any damages awarded based on the standard exclusion.

The real purpose of the exclusion is to stop claims arising through the breathing in of asbestos fibres, not all claims arising from the asbestos per se. To me, there is no greater risk for the underwriter in this example than if the roof was PVC or fibreglass.

As such, when I am asked to review an insurance program, I seek and in most cases am granted, a write back for cases where the claim is for property damage or bodily injury where it is not associated with a disease caused by asbestos.

I hope this answers your question.


Read Me View comments

Blog Question: If damage occurs during the Brisbane G20, would it be classified as terrorism?

G20 2014 Australia Logo

G20 2014 Australia Logo

This is a question that has been asked of me many times of late, particularly since the downing of ML17 as there is concern that there may be even more protests that originally thought.

The position is that there is not an industry standard exclusion for terrorism, but most are very broad in their application. With commercial premises, Insured’s pay a terrorism levy that goes to fund a Federal Government Terrorism Pool (the “Pool”), which is designed to provide cover. This was set up after the attack on the World Trade Center after September 11.

In cases where the Federal Government (there is a specific process to be followed) declares an event an act of terrorism, the claim would still be met subject to the terms; conditions, sums insured; limits and sub-limits of liability and where the loss is in excess of the insurers retention under the pool arrangement which, from memory, is $100,000, the Pool would pay the balance.

If a business was not insured then they would not have access to the Pool. Like any other event they would be treated as uninsured (or should be).

The whole question is difficult as it is all bound up in politics.

This disconnect between the wording of the exclusion and the governments willingness to declare an event as an act of terrorism is complicated. In my opinion the government will not rush in to a declaration for a couple of reasons. The first is that it could damage (further damage) tourism to this country that such an event would cause. Secondly, the Federal Government is taking out a significant amount of dividends from the Pool (a hidden tax on insurance) and this “dividend” may have to be reduced if the pool was seriously eroded by claim payments.

For example, when the Cronulla Riots occurred in 2005, this would have fallen under most terrorism exclusions but the government did not declare it as an act of terrorism and so insurers met the losses, (material damage and business interruption) as occurring as a result of the peril riot.

At the end of the day, an insured should be covered for damage and disruption caused by riot or an act of terrorism if they have insurance in place. However they will not be covered for closure or disruption due to the hosting of the event itself.

I hope this explains the position.

Read Me View comments

Misinterpretation of the Adjustments Clause in Business Interruption Policies

Road restrictions during construction phase of Gold Coast Light Rail. Source Plenary Group.

Road restrictions during construction phase of Gold Coast Light Rail. Source Plenary Group.

This article is a follow up from Monday’s posting.

The basic premise of the majority of Business Interruption policies is to indemnify the Insured. This means, in simplest terms, to put the Insured back in the same financial position they would have enjoyed had the disruption not occurred.

The basis of settlement and a number of clauses such at the “Savings Clause”, are included to achieve this. Arguably, the most powerful clause in the policy to achieve this goal is known as the “Adjustments Clause”.

An example of the Adjustments Clause, which I have taken from the Australian Mark IV Industrial Special Risks Policy reads:

Adjustments shall be made to the Rate of Gross Profit, Annual Turnover, Standard Turnover and Rate of Pay-Roll as may be necessary to provide for the trend of the Business and for variations in or other circumstances affecting the Business either before or after the Damage or which would have affected the Business had the Damage not occurred, so that the figures thus adjusted shall represent as nearly as may be reasonably practicable the results which, but for the Damage, would have been obtained during the relative period after the Damage.” [emphasis mine]

Using the example of businesses located along the tram line that I referred to in Monday’s posting, what can and unfortunately does happen is as follows:

Let’s say these businesses had a reduction in turnover in the year before the loss of, say, 8%, due to the construction works associated with building the tramway. Once the tramway is completed, the business owners would, to their minds, expect that business will not only return to normal, but markedly improve due to the increase in customers that the tramway should bring to their area.

The problem arises where the loss adjuster, or increasingly the forensic accountant, particularly where they do not visit the site but rather only look at the Insured’s financials – often from a different city or even state, sees the 8% downward performance of the business and treats this as a trend in the business, instead of a one-off variation.

If the construction is treated as a trend, then the Standard Turnover for the same period in the prior year will be marked down by -8%. Whereas if you treat the construction as a one-off special circumstance, the -8% would be ignored and a more accurate analysis of what the business would have achieved with the construction work completed and the tramway fully functional can be attained, so that the Insured is fully indemnified in accordance with the underlying principle that I referred to at the start of this post.

Not getting this basic position correct from the start is one of the biggest causes of disagreement during the claim settlement process. It is why I support what I was taught as a trainee adjuster, that you must touch and feel the claim, visit the site, speak to the Insured, their staff, neighbours and not just look at the numbers. This is just one of the reasons that an experienced claims preparer is often required on business interruption losses to carefully look at this sort of issue and provide a detailed report setting out the Insured’s entitlement. Like the loss adjuster, he/she can only do this properly if they go to the site and take a reasonable time to examine all the facts, trends and special circumstances.

Read Me 1

Blog Question: Will the Declaration of the ML17 Crash Effect Travel Insurance Claims?

Travel background with mechanical departures board and airline.This morning on the news it was reported that the Australian Government may be declaring the heinous attack on the Malaysian Airlines flight ML17 as a act of terrorism. In our industry, this leads to the question as to whether this will effect claims under travel insurance policies.

Travel policies are available under three broad categories.

  • Corporate/Business Travel policies
  • Personal Lines/Consumer travel policies
  • Travel cover that comes with some credit cards

There is no hard and fast rules with the cover afforded by the various policies.

Looking first at Corporate travel, some policies such as:

  • Accident and Health Underwriting,
  • ACE Insurance Limited;
  • Allianz;
  • Chubb
  • Dual Australia Limited;
  • SRS Underwriting Agency; and
  • Zurich Australia Insurance Limited [Source LMI PolicyComparison.com (Corporate Travel)]

do not have any exclusion in their policy in respect of terrorism. As such, all losses would be met subject to the level of cover in place.

Other insurance policies do limit some sections of the cover, such as the life insurance/death component and/or for costs associated with delays, but continue to provide cover for the repatriation of injured travelers and/or their remains and cover for the baggage.

The cover in the other two broad categories varies enormously as well and like any policy, it is important to read and understand the coverage that you are purchasing or recommending. I end the blog with a quick look at 9 of the policies Carl Greenhalgh from PolicyComparison looked at for me that falls within these categories. (Thanks Carl for your help on this.)

Where the policy does have an exclusion or limitation of cover for acts of terrorism, the definition of what will be treated as terrorism is defined and this is not dependent on the Australian or any other government making a declaration. As such the decision of the government to declare the event an act of terrorism or not will not in itself effect the insurers individual decision although clearly it would give comfort to any insurer that treated the event as an act of terrorism.

Whether the declaration of the event as an act of terrorism, or any other action taken by the government will allow them to provide additional services to the families of the victims is not clear at this time. Having said this, travel insurance is one of those necessities that you should take out before embarking on any trip, particularly overseas.

As always, if you are not sure which one is right for you please speak with your insurance broker. If you need a broker go here

Now back to the random review of a few of the 9 policies in the private travel/credit card space as at today. I set out a summary of Carl’s findings below:

1Cover Travel Insurance



i] An act or threat of terrorism.

Page 73



b] Your claim arises directly or indirectly from an act or threat of terrorism.

Page 74



b] We will not pay if your claim arises from an act or threat of terrorism.

Page 75




American Express

11 General Exclusions applicable to all sections

4. an act of Terrorism;


Terrorism means activities against persons, organisations or property of any nature:

(a) that involves the following or preparation for the following:

i) use of, or threat of, force or violence; or

ii) commission of, or threat of, force or violence; or

iii) commission of, or threat of, an act that interferes with or disrupts an electronic, communication, information, or mechanical system; and

(b) when one (1) or both of the following applies;

i) the effect is to intimidate or coerce a government of the civilian population or any segment thereof, or to disrupt any segment of the economy; and/or

ii) it appears that the intent is to intimidate or coerce a government, or to further political, ideological, religious, social or economic objectives or to express (or express opposition to) a philosophy or ideology.


Budget Direct

Part 6 – General Exclusions

27. Any loss, injury, damage or legal liability sustained directly or indirectly by you if you are:

  • A terrorist;
  • A member of a terrorist organisation;
  • A narcotics trafficker; or
  • A purveyor of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Page 18

Section A – Cancellation and Amendment Fees

What you are NOT covered for

6. Any terrorist act or any loss incurred as a result of any intentional use of military force or other

intervention by a government or official authority to intercept, prevent, or mitigate any known or

suspected terrorist act

Page 21

 Section C3 – Resumption of Journey

What you are NOT covered for

10. Any terrorist act or any loss incurred as a result of any intentional use of military force or other

intervention by a government or official authority to intercept, prevent, or mitigate any known or

suspected terrorist act.

Page 26

 Section D – Travel Delay Expenses

What you are NOT covered for

1. Any terrorist act or any loss incurred as a result of any intentional use of military force or other intervention by a government or official authority to intercept, prevent, or mitigate any known or suspected terrorist act

Page 26

Section J – Alternative Transport Expenses

What you are NOT covered for

3. Any terrorist act or any loss incurred as a result of any intentional use of military force or other intervention by a government or official authority to intercept, prevent, or mitigate any known or suspected terrorist act.

Page 35


 Terrorist act

Any actual or threatened use of force or violence directed at or causing damage, injury, harm or disruption, or committing of an act dangerous to human life or property, against any individual, property or government, with the stated or unstated objective of pursuing economic, ethnic, nationalistic, political, racial or religious interests, whether such interests are declared or not.

Robberies or other criminal acts, primarily committed for personal gain and acts arising primarily from prior personal relationships between perpetrator(s) and victim(s) shall not be considered terrorist acts. Terrorism shall also include any act which is verified or recognised by the (relevant) Government as an act of terrorism

Page 52





Nor will we pay if your cancellation fees or lost deposits Arise because of:

i] An act or threat of terrorism

Page 25


We will not pay if a delay to your Journey Arises from any of the following reasons:


b] an act or threat of terrorism,

Page 35



We will not pay:

b] If your claim Arises directly or indirectly from an act or threat of terrorism.

Page 36



Section 3: Cancellation fees and lost deposits

3.2 we will not pay any claim or loss:

j. As a result of an act of Terrorism

 Section 13: Travel delay expenses

13.2 we will not pay any claim or loss if:

b. An act or threat of Terrorism; or

Section 14: Special events

13.2 we will not pay any claim or loss if:

b. Your claim Arises from an act or threat of Terrorism


Terrorism means any act which may or may not involve the use of, or threat of, force or violence where the purpose of the act is to further a political, religious, ideological aim or to intimated or influence a government (whether lawfully constituted or not) or any section of the public.

Virgin Money



Nor will we pay if your cancellation fees or lost deposits Arise because of:

i] An act or threat of terrorism

Page 36


We will not pay if a delay to your Journey Arises from any of the following reasons:


b] an act or threat of terrorism,

Page 43



We will not pay:

b] If your claim Arises directly or indirectly from an act or threat of terrorism.

Page 43




These are the general exclusions which apply to all sections of this policy. You should read them, together with the cover and the specific exclusions referred to under each section of cover.

There is no cover under any section of this policy for any claim arising directly or indirectly because of any of the following:

18. a loss caused by, arising directly or indirectly from or in any way connected with an act or threat of terrorism. This exclusion does not apply to Section 1A Medical Expenses Incurred Outside of Australia, Section 1B Medical Expenses Incurred Onboard A Cruise Ship, 2A Emergency Dental Expenses, Section 5G Hijacking, Section 7B

Repatriation Of Remains To Or Within Australia Or Funeral Expenses Overseas, Section 10 Luggage or under Section 3 Medical Evacuation And Repatriation for the cost of repatriation to or within Australia, if the carrier requires you to be brought back with a medical escort.

Page 31



What we will not cover if your travel is cancelled, rescheduled, delayed or interrupted We will not cover loses directly Or indirectly caused by: ·

Any act of terrorism

Page 16

 What we will not cover if you become ill, injured or need medical or dental treatment We will not cover:  Accommodation and travel expenses resulting from terrorism

Page 25

Additional cover included in this insurance Hire vehicle excess waiver

We will not pay for any incident resulting from any act of terrorism

Page 30

Return of hire vehicle  We will not pay for any incident resulting from any act of terrorism

Page 31

Hijack We will not pay for any incident resulting from any act of terrorism

Page 31

Mugging We will not pay for any incident resulting from any act of terrorism

Page 31


Terrorism any act which may involve the use. or threat. of force, violence or biological or chemical warfare. or nuclear pollution or contamination or explosion where the purpose of the act is to further a political, religious, ideological aim or to intimidate or influence a government or any section of the public.

Page 56


We will also not pay any claims under Sections 1, 5 and 11 arising from: 26. anything directly or indirectly caused by, resulting from or in connection with any act of terrorism regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any other sequence to the loss, damage, liability, cost or expense, 27. anything directly or indirectly caused by, resulting from or in connection with any action taken in controlling, preventing, suppressing or in any way relating to any act of terrorism.


“act of terrorism” means an act, including but not limited to the use of force or violence and/or the threat thereof, of any person or group(s) of persons, whether acting alone or on behalf of or in connection with any organisation(s) or government(s), which from its nature or context is done for, or in connection with, political, religious, ideological, ethnic or similar purposes or reasons, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public, or any section of the public, in fear.


Read Me View comments