27 votes

Insurance Companies begin EXCLUDING all Coverage for Radiation Claims

February 2, 2014 -- (TRN) -- Insurance Companies in the United States have begun notifying customers they will no longer have ANY coverage whatsoever for anything relating to nuclear energy claims. Fallout, radiation sickness, property damage from radiation - all EXCLUDED. Here



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Property insurance policies have had a nuclear exclusion

For many decades now, that's not new, but they may be tightening up the exclusion. Some perils cannot be insured against because the magnitude of the damages can far exceed the financial capacity of the insurer to pay. AIG should have been aware of the risks before they insured mortgages against default. The insurance commissioner of New York said, "we did not consider this (what AIG was doing) an insurance product.

An example is the flood exclusion, that's why the federal government underwrites flood policies for property risks.

Nuclear. Flood. Vaccine... Many risks rated un-insurable.

Risks too risky to insure are donated to government?

Be mindful when government assumes or otherwise interfere with such high & mighty risks:

  • "Only fools rush in."
  • "A fools errand."
  • "Fool's paradise."

Note: Thimerasol ® is about 50% mercury. It is used to kill bacteria & other life forms...

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Let me put it this way

"Risks too risky to be insured", reminds of the saying: "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"

In word...

And deed.

Regards,

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Radiation Insurance? Nuclear Insurance? Double Tainted!

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant: 3 reactors of the Fukushima nuclear power plant on Thursday morning after March 11, 2011. radioactive steam may have leaked due to damage to its ... Fukushima? What Fukushima?

Taint yours. And it taint mine. The existence of such insurance is questioned.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

TSA body scanners?...

**

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

Damages would be ephemeral

This is because the property wouldn't really be damaged, but simply tainted. The real damage would be to the resale value due to people not wanting to pay as much for the property. And you can't prove a causal link from the small increase in radiation exposure to cancer, but the legal costs could be huge.

If you actually live near a nuclear reactor, then when your property is damaged, the owner of the reactor should be the one whose insurance pays. Because your recourse in this case should be to sue *them*, not file a claim on a policy that *you* paid for.

Fukushima fallout.

Those insurers are very cautious people. Don't want to give out any of the money they collect. With the hint of maybe an increase in radiation worldwide might just result from nuclear power plant leaks, or at least the perception of that is afloat in the press... Exclude! Makes the aura of validity to the poisoning of the environment via Fuku-fallout a reality that insurers must deal with now. Hope those ETs are working overtime, so as to alter this reality spooking insurance providers.

Government should step in

This is a clear case where we need Big Nanny to step in and dictate terms, right? Because liberty depends upon the coercive power of the state to compel "fair" terms in any contract?

FWIW, I've never seen an insurance policy which didn't already exclude any and all damages from radiation, whether naturally occurring, accident or act of war. That both renter's and homeowner's policies going back to the early 90's which I've had in Virginia, Illinois and Massachusetts.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

This industry

is one of the worst there is against liberty.

NOSHEEPLE

I'm curious, why do you think that?

Respectfully asking the question and would like to know your perspective on it.

This is a rare area

where I disagree with our beloved country doctor. The potential for damage to others, from nuclear power, is so great, there is no party capable of putting things right.

One might look at this announcement as a very important market signal from insurers.

You GOTTA get insurance , right?

Now just fill out these forms telling us all your information

all of it

This seems more like greed

This seems more like greed than anything else. With radiation, you either get better really quickly, or you die really quickly.
I wonder if they are afraid they would have to pay out for any cancers that occured afterwards regardless of how much time is between exposure and cancer.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

What It Means

I was impressed when my chiropractor pointed out that he paid much less for malpractice insurance than an MD would. That meant he was less likely to hurt somebody, through action or failure to act.

In this case, however, the insurance companies may be reacting to reactors of either type: nuclear or human. I imagine they don't want to fight claims either true or false, since both are expensive.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/