Insurance definition of terrorism

[plwsm2000]

Just had my renewal notice from Comfort insurance and they have changed some of the wording in the policy about the definition of terrorism that I thought was quite loose.

The new wording states -

 

"We will not pay for any consequences whatsoever which is the direct or indirect result of any of the following .....

a) Terrorism - is defined as any act or acts including, but not limited to - The use of threat of force and/or violence ....."

 

Although the chance of me being held up at knife point and having the keys to the van taken is pretty slim, this scenario is still probably far more likely than me being on the receiving end of some kind of "real" terrorist activity.

 

I contacted Comfort and they said that this is now standard ABI wording for all insurance companies and that I will still be covered against theft. I cannot find anything in the policy document to cover this. Has anyone else looked into this?

 

Phil

[mel64]

Thanks for the heads up my renewal from Comfort is up in a couple of months.

[Agaric]

Is that the full wording as it should continue, "for political reasons", that is the definition.

 

The strange thing is there is nothing on the ABI site about this for motor policies, for buildings and commercial policies there is.

[plwsm2000]

Agaric - 2017-08-25 5:20 PM

 

Is that the full wording as it should continue, "for political reasons", that is the definition.

 

The strange thing is there is nothing on the ABI site about this for motor policies, for buildings and commercial policies there is.

 

Agaric, The next paragraph (following the one in my post) reads -

 

"and/or

Harm or damage to life or to property ..... caused or occasioned by any person(s) or group(s) of persons in whole or in part for political, religious, ideological or similar purposes ..."

 

The key word for me is the "or" in "and/or". If it was just "and" I would be happy. I am no legal expert but this seems to me as a possible "get out" cause in the unlikely event of a claim.

 

Phil

[brom]

I have just looked for my up-to-date Comfort policy document wording, and can't find the relevant paperwork - can't get the secretaries nowadays!

 

However, from the wording you have quoted, I don't see a problem. As I read it:

 

The use of, or threat of, force or violence, and/or the harm or damage to life or property are all excluded IF and only IF -

 

they are occasioned by the person or persons specified thereafter, (and that specification seems a reasonable description of most terrorists).

 

However, I will look out my policy and have a further look, to be sure.

[HymerVan]

Terrorism has been an exclusion in Commercial Buildings as opposed to Domestic i.e. houses for many years but having looked at my domestic policy it appears at least in the case of my house insurer that it is not an exclusion.

It is also not an exclusion in my current Aviva underwritten van policy. Aviva (who are a multi-national company based in Europe) underwrite at least some of Comforts products and may be the underwriter here. If so they may have wakened up to terrorism in the context of motorhome travellers particularly since they may travel widely abroad including European Capitals.

As Brom says it is difficult to give the best answer without the full wording . Traditionally the definition of Terrorism was linked to the definition of that word contained in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the UK government have a list of so called "of proscribed terrorist organisations.". Of course terrorism is international and so is motorhome travel so the UK Act is not the only relevant issue. Indeed whilst I am by no means an expert in terrorism if media reports are to be believed "modern" terrorists may not be linked directly or traceably to any particular terrorist organisation and it is interesting to note that the "Comfort" wording is wider. I quote the definition in the Act.

 

Section 1. –

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

© the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious[, racial][3] or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

© endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

 

As Brom says the starting point for a claim for say a robbery at knife point would that it was covered and if the insurer wanted to use the exclusion they would have to establish that it applied i.e. the onus would be on them. The definition does give them more wiggle room compared with the Act definition but perhaps the Act is behind the curve.

I don't know if ABI have prescribed wording for their members (it seems unlikely since that in itself might cause legal issues) but if Aviva underwrite Devitt (C&MC) and Comfort policies then two of the largest providers may be excluded if you want to avoid the wording and others will probably come into line sooner or later so it may be something we just have to live with as indeed is the risk of terrorism itself.

[Robinhood]

I've looked at (all) my current policies, and, though I have older ones to which the following didn't apply ("Terrorism" being a general exclusion in those), I'm reasonably happy about the wording in the current versions.

 

I obviously haven't got a copy of your policy, but if you read it carefully, it may well be that the exclusions relating to terrorism are explicitly associated with (and in the separate section relating to) Third Party Liabilities.

 

The cover for damage/theft/repair of your vehicle would then be in a separate section, without any overarching terrorism-related conditions.

 

It is simply a means of the insurance company distancing themselves from what could be absolutely massive third-party claims (albeit it would be quite peculiar circumstances under which they would stick, and would probably require you or a named driver to be carrying out a terrorist attack yourself).

[HymerVan]

Robinhood - 2017-08-28 10:13 AM

 

I've looked at (all) my current policies, and, though I have older ones to which the following didn't apply ("Terrorism" being a general exclusion in those), I'm reasonably happy about the wording in the current versions.

 

I obviously haven't got a copy of your policy, but if you read it carefully, it may well be that the exclusions relating to terrorism are explicitly associated with (and in the separate section relating to) Third Party Liabilities.

 

The cover for damage/theft/repair of your vehicle would then be in a separate section, without any overarching terrorism-related conditions.

 

It is simply a means of the insurance company distancing themselves from what could be absolutely massive third-party claims (albeit it would be quite peculiar circumstances under which they would stick, and would probably require you or a named driver to be carrying out a terrorist attack yourself).

 

 

Comforts "Horizon" Policy Wording (April 2017) is available as a pdf on their website. I think this is their main policy for motorhomes (a different one "Twilight" is for camper-vans ) the distinction between Motorhomes and camper-vans in this context may be different from other contexts. I have not studied the Twilight policy in detail but the arrangement of sections wording and exclusions is similar.

In each Policy Section 1. Motorhomes and Section V Contents do not have a do not have a terrorist exclusion.

Section II Liability does have a Terrorist exclusion.

So based on that policy wording I entirely agree with Robin.

 

It is not easy to think of a set of circumstances where the insured would be liable to third parties (as you say short of the insured or a named driver directly carrying out a terrorist attack) and I doubt if the insurers would be liable even without the exclusion.