Terrorism is specifically EXCLUDED from most Home Owners' policies...

[elehhhhna]

You can see where I (and FauxNoose) are going here, right?

[DS1]

1. Shrub defines arsonist as terrorist, Insurance companies off the hook

:)

[madinmaryland]

2. Is arson terrorism? Or is it defined by who did it?

But I am sure that Faux will be supporting the insurance companies decision to deny the claims, except to the very wealthy.

[Donnachaidh]

3. guess they now have to DIG to frighten people, just like Chimpie

And how EXACTLY are the insurance companies going to PROVE the fires are started by terrorists? Most arsonist's fall in the *white male* category (quoting someone from this am's news spew). Wonder how long it will take the insurance companies to push through laws that will make all arsonists *terrorists*?

I feel for those homeowners. I used to work for the Dept. of Insurance in California - and it's NOT going to be pretty watching them get screwed by the insurance companies. And they will screw the consumers. GUARANTEED.

[Warpy]

4. You betcha

If they can keep that guy they nabbed awake under bright lights, without food or water and under threat to life and limb long enough, he'll magically become al Qaeda instead of some joker who was hired by a builder to torch a new development going up that would have been unsalable, or just some dope who flipped away a lit match after he lit his cigarette.

If he's a terrier, then the insurance companies don't have to pay a dime.

[fed-up]

5. has been excluded for at least 20 years-read policy closely when neighbor's tree fell in my yard nt

[EnviroBat]

6. That's interesting since you're required to purchase it on your policy.

At least my homeowners policy contains a clause requireing the coverage. Also, all small business owners policies, (at least in the state of Ohio) require terrorism coverage. So the insurance companies lobbied for this in order to extort money from their policy holders, and now the want to turn tail on the "deal". Hmmm, sounds about right...