USAR > Operations

insurance for firefighters at terrorist incidents

(1/6) > >>

dave bev:
for those of you who are not aware somerset have suspended industrial action to allow the authority to address the issue of insurance for firefighters at terrorist incidents. the following article gives some background.

the real question is WHY has it taken the threat of industrial action to get them to finally look at and hopefully resolve the issue? lets hope the authority and government can find the will to resolve this issue and ensure firefighters are fully insured!

id like to publicly congratulate the somerset membership for their actions so far.


Conservatives have rounded on the Labour Government's "shameful" refusal to provide full insurance protection for fire fighters in the face of the growing terrorist threat confronting the UK.

Research by the party has revealed that not only are fire service personnel not covered by insurance for terror incidents, but that John Prescott's Whitehall Office of the Deputy Prime Minister actually ruled out extending cover to the country's fire and rescue services when the issue was reviewed following the 9-11 terrorist outages in the United States.

And Government ministers have told MPs in the Commons that if firemen and women want full insurance cover, it is up to them to make their own arrangements with their insurance companies to give them financial protection in the event of being killed or injured when dealing with a terrorist incident.

Pointing out that many fire fighters are struggling to obtain personal insurance against terrorist attacks, Shadow Local Government Secretary Caroline Spelman protested: "Many fire fighters are concerned that the growing terror threat will make it more difficult or expensive to obtain personal insurance."

Stressing the importance of providing the emergency services will proper financial protection, she said: "Given Britain faces a clear and present danger from more terrorist attacks, including the possibility of chemical, biological or radiological incidents, it is vital that our frontline emergency services receive the protection and support that they deserve. John Prescott's refusal to extend insurance cover is shameful, given that fire fighters put their lives on the line to protect the public."

Chris Houston:
What type of insurance is being discussed here?

It sounds you are saying the Employers Liability insurance does not cover for injury to firefighters while on duty? Is that true?

dave bev:
chris, the issue revolves around personal insurance ie credit cards loans morgages etc. insurance companies would not pay out to the individuals estate because of the 'terrorist' clause. the govt./employers have taken a conscious decision NOT to ensure those debts are paid.

employers insurance would still be valid - but potentially may not cover the individuals debt - press release from unison also released



PRESS RELEASE

03/08/2005
UNISON Calls on Insurers to Protect the People Protecting the Public
UNISON, the UK’s ambulance union, today called it a disgrace that some personal insurance policies* would not pay out to families of emergency workers killed or injured dealing with a terrorist incident. The union is calling on those companies to drop exclusion clauses and offer comprehensive protection to emergency personnel who put their lives on the line to protect the public and care for the injured.

Sam Oestreicher, UNISON national officer for ambulance staff said:

“All ambulance trusts must train at least 10% of their crews to deal with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear emergencies. At this time of heightened security, we should all be grateful that staff volunteer to undertake this training.

“That is why it is so shocking to learn that some insurance companies would leave emergency workers and their families high and dry, if they were injured or killed dealing with this type of emergency.

“UNISON Insurance does provide cover in these cases but all insurance companies must do the right thing - drop these exclusions and offer comprehensive cover.”

e.g. personal accident or mortgage indemnity

ends

Chris Houston:
Surely it's down to the consumers to buy policies that suit their needs?

I note that UNISON say "some" don't cover this, so buy policys from those who do, if that's what one wants.

fireftrm:
Why should people whose employers REQUIRE them to attend terrorist incidents then have to but, probably, more expensive insurance. This is not in your contract of employment and therefore should be  for the employers to pay. Any new starters may be informed about such matters, but not existing staff. The most sensible thing would be for government to sell teh insurance and make them available at commercial rates, for standard terrorist excluded policies. After all national and local government, as for a lot of large private concerns, already self-insure so why not extend this to such employees? Overall it wouldn't cost them anything, surely?

It is not a case of buying insurance that 'the consumer wants' what the employee wants is for their employer to accept that their requirements to attend terrorist incidents may mean that existing policies are nulled and therefore to make amends for this.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page