Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 15 Jan 2015, 03:09 PM Agree 0
Treasurer Joe Hockey has reached a decision on the government standing on the Sydney Siege as an act of terror.
  • Janey | 15 Jan 2015, 03:42 PM Agree 0
    So Hockey says is a 'terrorist incident' designed so people couldn't claim. And some insurers are paying? So exactly what is this piece about then?

    This was not a terrorist incident. It was a crazy lone gunmen/murderer/nutcase. Just because he happened to be Muslim does not make him a terrorist. Holding an ISIS flag when he had no affiliation is consistent with his madness.
  • D | 15 Jan 2015, 04:02 PM Agree 0
    Janey, designed so that it triggers the terrorism exclusion which enables the insurer to PAY based on the Terrorism Insurance Act, so the government will compensate down the line.

    Terrorism: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    Not to mention ISIS (and others) cheered on this act.

    Honestly, take a little bit of time next time you choose to comment.
  • Brett | 15 Jan 2015, 04:03 PM Agree 0
    I'm Glad I am not the only one confused by this article.
  • Kate | 15 Jan 2015, 04:30 PM Agree 0
    From Wikipedia: Terrorism is commonly defined as to refer to only those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians).

    I think the Sydney seige met those criteria, what would be nice is if the media were to bring home the point that the insurers were willing to pay claims regardless of exclusions. It would also be a great opportunity to explain how the terrorism coverage works for the everyday person.
  • Nameless | 15 Jan 2015, 05:03 PM Agree 0
    To Janey:

    This man was a terrorist. Regardless of affiliations or religious background, this man fell under the category of a terrorist specifically due to it's very definition;

    Terrorise - "create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror."

    He held the nation captive with his siege in Sydney, he created fear and distress amongst the public and spurred on debates, both political and social. Just because there was no property damage from a bomb or an airplane, doesn't mean this wasn't a terrorist attack.

    That man was a terrorist.
  • Andrew | 15 Jan 2015, 05:10 PM Agree 0
    Always thought the trigger for a business interruption claim to be made was actual physical damage to the business property insured
  • Robert Cooper | 15 Jan 2015, 05:56 PM Agree 0
    To me this was a criminal act from a mentally ill person who simply used "Islamic State" as an excuse for his actions.
    To call it a terrorist act, is to say this was organised, planned, funded by a terrorist organisation. It was not even sanctioned by any of these groups.
    I think Mr Hockey has called it this just to keep the public scared and on their toes because when this happens, we tend to support the current government with anything they do. Thats what they want.
  • Paul | 15 Jan 2015, 06:17 PM Agree 0
    Couldn't have said it any better!
    Most of all considering the real terror acts that recently took place in Europe assimilating this siege to terrorism is just an incredible outcome!
    Keeping lunatics, alleged murderers and rapists in jail would have achieved a much better result and helped prevent such a desastrous epilogue
Post a reply