FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

How Insurance Companies Exploited 9/11

Whereas one of the consequences of 9/11 was the curtailing of the freedom of the people in the United States by the imposition of new laws and sanctions, that same event freed Congress to do all sorts of things that no one in his or her right mind would have ever dreamed of permitting it to do prior to that infamous date. One of the manifestations of this new found Congressional freedom was the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.

9/11 cost insurance companies in excess of $40 billion, which was more than any single loss they had suffered prior to that day. They disliked sustaining such enormous losses and out of self-interest decided the government should do something to make sure they never again sustained such losses.

At first blush it seems odd that insurance companies would ask the government to butt into their internal affairs. Insurance companies are big business and big business takes pride in the free market system that works best when government intervenes least in the lives of people and corporations. The insurance companies were willing to make an exception in this case, however, because what they were asking affected their profit margins (so they said) and big business is willing to look the other way when it is asking the government to do things that makes them wealthy. (So are individuals who hold themselves out as being conservatives but that is not relevant to today’s topic.)

The insurance companies said that without help from Congress (by which they meant the taxpayers,) insurance companies would decline to offer terrorism coverage to companies. They were not the least bit embarrassed to say this to Congress. 9/11 had nothing to do with something the big insurance companies did wrong and therefore, they concluded, it was not inconsistent with their general aversion to having the government get involved in their affairs, for them to go to Congress and ask for help And help they got. It was called the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.

The Act provides that in the event of another terrorist attack insurance companies will be required to pay the first $10 billion in losses. In addition, in 2003 insurance companies will be responsible for paying a deductible equal to 7 percent of the premiums received the previous year. The deductible rises to 10 percent in 2004 and 15 percent in 2005. Above that the taxpayers are required to participate in future losses by paying 90 percent of all losses in excess of more than $10 billion up to a maximum of $90 billion. In 2004 the taxpayers’ obligation drops to $87.5 billion and in 2005 it drops to $85 billion. There are other provisions but space does not permit their description with one exception. That exception is this. In 2005 the Act expires. That is something the insurance industry fears even more than another terrorist attack.

To allay its fears it contributed $36 million to people running for office in the last election and now hopes that the good people to whom it gave money will return the favor by leaving the 2002 Terrorism Risk Insurance Act in place and improving on it. It wants the act to apply to life insurance and to cars and houses as well as to companies. The industry says it cannot afford another 9/11 notwithstanding the following fact. According to the Consumer Federation of American, insurers reported a 66.4 percent increase in profits in the first six months of 2002 thus suggesting the consequences of 9/11 were not as dire for them as they were for thousands of others.

The companies are not so crass as to suggest that they need the protection because a 66.4 percent increase in profits (after paying out more than $40 billion in claims) was inadequate. Instead they explain that unless the government lets taxpayers become coinsurers against terrorism losses, the companies will be unwilling to write insurance against terrorist attacks and the taxpayers will be the losers. That is a dismal prospect for the taxpayer and the government and the Congress.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a lawyer in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: Brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu or through his website: http://hraos.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

March 25, 2019
Jonathan Cook
Three Lessons for the Left from the Mueller Inquiry
Dave Lindorff
The TSA’s Role as Journalist Harasser and Media ‘Watchdog’
Tanya Golash-Boza – Michael Golash
Epifanio Camacho: a Militant Farmworker Brushed Out of History
Robert Fisk
Don’t Believe the Hype: Here’s Why ISIS Hasn’t Been Defeated
Jack Rasmus
The Capitulation of Jerome Powell and the Fed
Lawrence Davidson
Israel’s Moves to the Right
John Feffer
After Trump
James Ridgeway
Good Agent, Bad Agent: Robert Mueller and 9/11
Dean Baker
The Importance of Kicking Up: Changing Market Structures So the Rich Don’t Get All the Money
Lawrence Wittner
What Democratic Socialism Is and Is Not
Thomas Knapp
Suppressing Discussion Doesn’t Solve the Problem. It is the Problem.
Stephen Cooper
“I’m a Nine-Star General Now”: an Interview with Black Uhuru’s Duckie Simpson
Andrew Moss
Immigration and the Democratic Hopefuls
Weekend Edition
March 22, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Henry Giroux
The Ghost of Fascism in the Post-Truth Era
Gabriel Rockhill
Spectacular Violence as a Weapon of War Against the Yellow Vests
H. Bruce Franklin
Trump vs. McCain: an American Horror Story
Paul Street
A Pox on the Houses of Trump and McCain, Huxleyan Media, and the Myth of “The Vietnam War”
Andrew Levine
Why Not Impeach?
Bruce E. Levine
Right-Wing Psychiatry, Love-Me Liberals and the Anti-Authoritarian Left
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Darn That (American) Dream
Charles Pierson
Rick Perry, the Saudis and a Dangerous Nuclear Deal
Moshe Adler
American Workers Should Want to Transfer Technology to China
David Rosen
Trafficking or Commercial Sex? What Recent Exposés Reveal
Nick Pemberton
The Real Parallels Between Donald Trump and George Orwell
Binoy Kampmark
Reading Manifestos: Restricting Brenton Tarrant’s The Great Replacement
Brian Cloughley
NATO’s Expensive Anniversaries
Ron Jacobs
Donald Cox: Tale of a Panther
Joseph Grosso
New York’s Hudson Yards: The Revanchist City Lives On
REZA FIYOUZAT
Is It Really So Shocking?
Bob Lord
There’s Plenty of Wealth to Go Around, But It Doesn’t
John W. Whitehead
The Growing Epidemic of Cops Shooting Family Dogs
Jeff Cohen
Let’s Not Restore or Mythologize Obama 
Christy Rodgers
Achieving Escape Velocity
Monika Zgustova
The Masculinity of the Future
Jessicah Pierre
The Real College Admissions Scandal
Peter Mayo
US Higher Education Influence Takes a Different Turn
Martha Rosenberg
New Study Confirms That Eggs are a Stroke in a Shell
Ted Rall
The Greatest Projects I Never Mad
George Wuerthner
Saving the Big Wild: Why Aren’t More Conservationists Supporting NREPA?
Norman Solomon
Reinventing Beto: How a GOP Accessory Became a Top Democratic Contender for President
Ralph Nader
Greedy Boeing’s Avoidable Design and Software Time Bombs
Tracey L. Rogers
White Supremacy is a Global Threat
Nyla Ali Khan
Intersectionalities of Gender and Politics in Indian-Administered Kashmir
Karen J. Greenberg
Citizenship in the Age of Trump: Death by a Thousand Cuts
Jill Richardson
Getting It Right on What Stuff Costs
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail