The Federal Role In Terrorism Insurance

Concerned that the unavailability of terrorism insurance would impede economic recovery and hinder growth after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 "TRIA". TRIA will sunset at the end of 2007 unless Congress takes further action. This book examines the implications of allowing TRIA to expire and of enhancements aimed at improving the availability and affordability of insurance for nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological "NBCR" attacks. The analysis takes a systematic approach to addressing the deep uncertainties that underlie the market for terrorism insurance and is the first study of TRIA to consider not just taxpayer payments through the program but also the cost of government compensation and assistance following a terrorist attack when analyzing the program's effect on government spending. The authors conclude that taxpayer cost is lower with TRIA than without TRIA across a broad range of assumptions about attack frequency and the proportion of uninsured losses that are compensated postattack. The analysis also cautions policymakers to be careful when modifying the program to better address NBCR attacks: Simply expanding the program to require insurers to offer NBCR coverage may not achieve the desired outcomes. The authors identify program changes that will produce positive results for both NBCR and conventional attacks that are robust to key underlying uncertainties.

What are the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act's effects on the market for terrorism insurance? What would be the effect of enhancing provisions for nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological (NBCR) attacks? The authors conclude that the program yields positive outcomes in a number of dimensions for conventional attacks and identify specific reforms that can improve results for NBCR attacks.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the federal government adopted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), which requires insurers to make terrorism coverage available to commercial policyholders. In exchange, the federal government will reimburse insurers for a portion of insured losses above a particular threshold. This paper frames the central issues in the debate over whether to extend, modify, or end TRIA, and explores the role of disaster insurance within a system for managing risks created by the possibility of terrorist attacks and compensating losses caused by those attacks.

The threat of terrorism poses a challenge for the U.S. insurance system: How can the system best insure against potential losses and compensate victims of attacks? Following the 9/11 attacks, the federal government adopted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), which requires insurers to make terrorism coverage available to commercial policyholders. In return, TRIA guarantees that the public (i.e., the government) will reimburse insurers for 90 percent of losses from terrorism above certain thresholds. TRIA was intended to bolster the insurance industry against catastrophic payouts while the industry developed strategies and mechanisms to cope with the threat of terrorism. TRIA expires on December 31, 2005, but insurance policies (which typically last one year) will soon begin to be written that will expire after TRIA does. This paper has a dual purpose: to help frame the central issues that should be considered in the debate over whether to extend, modify, or end TRIA, and to explore the broader issue of the appropriate role of disaster insurance within a system for managing risks created by the possibility of terrorist attacks and compensating losses caused by terrorist attacks. The paper also discusses options that policymakers might consider in addressing these issues and goals against which various options can be evaluated. Although this paper focuses on insurance, it is important to note that insurance is only one part of an overall system for managing risks created by the possibility of terrorist attacks and compensating losses caused by terrorist attacks. Direct government compensation, the tort system, and charities can also play a role in this system.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11, have resulted in insured losses of $32.5 billion. To help restore confidence and stability in property insurance markets, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 was passed under which the fed. gov¿t. assumed significant responsibility for the potential insured financial losses associated with future terrorist attacks. However, some remain concerned that there may still be gaps in coverage. There are concerns about the ability of policyholders located in large urban areas that are viewed as being at high risk of attack to obtain terrorism insurance coverage. This study determines if specific markets in the U.S. have any unique constraints on the amount of terrorism insurance available and to evaluate options to enhance coverage.