Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (13153)	9/12/2001 12:58:11 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 209892

<<Insurers don't insure war because of generalized damage. There is no justification for not insuring localized terrorist incidents.>> Insurers will insure anything and exclude anything if the terms are right. They can easily insert riders excluding anything, providing the buyer is willing. The only question is, was that what happened with the WTC (any insurer would have extra incentive to exclude terrorism there based on past claims history). Also, look at all the newsclipping describing this as "Pearl Harbor" or "An act of War"....don't think lawyers won't try to use it.