US Congress seeks to extend terrorism risk insurance
The House of Representatives has defied a White House veto threat to extend government anti-terrorism risk insurance to 2022.
WASHINGTON – On September 19, two days after US President George Bush threatened to veto any extension to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), the House of Representatives passed a new bill – the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act – extending the government’s compensation scheme until 2022.
The TRIA was created after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center as a safety net for the insurance industry against terrorist-related risk and, after a 2005 renewal, was due to expire at the end of this year. The new bill expands the TRIA to also cover domestically generated terrorism. Cover includes nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological threats and the minimum claim has been halved, from $100 million to $50 million.
A statement by the Office of Management and Budget on September 17 had vowed to veto any such development. Bush has not vetoed one bill in his six years in office, but has issued 39 veto threats since the Democrats achieved majorities in the House and Senate in January. The White House described the TRIA as a “temporary mechanism” introduced amid the post-9/11 market dislocation, designed to be phased out as the market matured, to develop private anti-terrorism insurance. The revised act is backed by the corporate and insurance sectors, who claim there is no adequate sustainable commercial basis for a transition of responsibility to the private insurance market.
The new bill has been sent to the floor of the Senate, which, if the bill is passed as expected, will await a response from the White House
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
EU regulators clash over ceding supervision to Esma
Belgian and Spanish regulators differ on drive for centralised oversight of cross-border firms
Why Trump’s latest Truth should make TradFi twitchy
Wall Street is becoming the villain in US president’s crypto movie
EBA guidance prompts banks to rethink CSRBB perimeters
Banks will likely have to expand their credit spread risk coverage following recommendations
Market players warn against European repo clearing mandate
Regulators urged to await outcome of US mandate and be wary of risks to government bond liquidity
Esma won’t soften regulatory expectations for cloud and AI
CCP supervisory chair signals heightened scrutiny of third-party risk and operational resilience
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either