insurance for firefighters at terrorist incidents

[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.

[Chris Houston]

I only know of one local authority that self insures.  They used to all do it collectivly, it was called Municipal Mutual.  It went bust and was taken over by Zurich and called Zurich Municipal.

[fireftrm]

Onlyone, are you sure. Mine does and I know of at least three others.

They still have an insurance with ZM, but each department pays into an insurance pot and the insurance manager pays out on internal claims. Only large claims (above the excess) go to ZM.

Quite common really, indeed ALARM seem to think so!

[Chris Houston]

Well, I suppose in the same way that I self insure my car by paying the first £200 of any claim, it can be said that every local authority self insures everything under the policy excess.

[fireftrm]

Yep, but it is a lot more than the £200, for example does that authority make a claim for the loss of the £1500 laptop? Not here they don't, that comes from the insurance section and is paid from the amount collected from each directorate's insurance premium back to the insurance section.

[messy]

Three questions:


1) What about others who are called upon to attend terrorist activities (Police/Military) and those who work in the front line (tube and bus drivers, airline crew)?.

2) Are they 'covered' by the employers??

3) and why - after decades of terrorist action across the UK- have the FBU realised this discrepancy?

[Chris Houston]

I don't think bus drivers or airline crew are in the front line of terrorism.   The chances of these people encountering a terrorist in their entire career must be almost zero.

[fireftrm]

Unless they are on a plane that flies into a building, or gets blown up after a hijack, or are on a bus when the suicide bomber blows themself up? Strangely I would have thought (silly me must be imagining it) that aircrew were very much in the front line, but then again I just get my information from the real world, so am  obvioulsy well out of date. Chris, as an insurance type perhaps you could offer me some low cost insurance for real world risks, it must be cheaper in yours?


Messy the 'reason' is the change to terrorist get-out clauses by insurance companies post 9/11 and the change to having terrorist incident response capability by FRS since 2003...........not quite a decade, yet.
The new dimension of terrorism we now face is one that provides far more risks to the attending emergency services, the IRA did not target firefighters, the new terrorists will be after anyone and may well cause deaths among rescuers by deliberate action. I hardly think that the pervious risks were of the same magnitude, unless you were from the police or armed forces.

[Chris Houston]

Unless they are on a plane that flies into a building, or gets blown up after a hijack, or are on a bus when the suicide bomber blows themself up? Strangely I would have thought (silly me must be imagining it) that aircrew were very much in the front line, but then again I just get my information from the real world, so am  obvioulsy well out of date. Chris, as an insurance type perhaps you could offer me some low cost insurance for real world risks, it must be cheaper in yours?


Messy the 'reason' is the change to terrorist get-out clauses by insurance companies post 9/11 and the change to having terrorist incident response capability by FRS since 2003...........not quite a decade, yet.
The new dimension of terrorism we now face is one that provides far more risks to the attending emergency services, the IRA did not target firefighters, the new terrorists will be after anyone and may well cause deaths among rescuers by deliberate action. I hardly think that the pervious risks were of the same magnitude, unless you were from the police or armed forces.

fireftrm,

I think you are allowing the media coverage of events to cloud your perceptions.  

Firstly, bus drivers.  Recently, in London two explosions have occured on buses.  Aside from that I can recall no terrorism incidents in mainland Britain where bus drivers would encounter any terrorism risks.  Now the IRA put a bomb on a bridge once, are bridge workers at an increased risk of terrorism?  Several years ago offices and shops were bombed, but I don't see shop workers or office staff on your list, but many more were at risk.

Now airline staff.  Imagine how many flights take off and land every day.  I have no idea how many there are, but it's tens of thousands surely.  Imagnie how many staff in the Britain work in the airline industry.  How many of them have ever experienced terrorism?  Again, more office staff and shop workers will have done.

No British plane has ever been flown into a building, only two busses have ever been blown up and as far as I am aware no TfL staff lost their lives.

[dave bev]

chris - i take your point about other workers being involved but there truly is a difference to being involved in an incident and attending an incident as part of your employment - especially when you are aware of the nature of the incident before you attend.

i dont have a list of those who should or should not be given some sort of protection in terms of personal insurance extension - but would support the inclusion of ANYONE involved in an incident as part of their employment (whether paid or voluntary) - although that doesnt help those who are injured as a result of 'being in the wrong place ...... etc

surely the simple answer is for the govt to outlaw the clause - in reality how much would it cost the insurance companies to ensure personal debt is settled against the spending on the replacement of building structures? again the reality probably is that any cost would be passed to everyone who takes any sort of insurance - so it would be borne by the whole community and not the families of those left behind

dave bev

[messy]

The new dimension of terrorism we now face is one that provides far more risks to the attending emergency services, the IRA did not target firefighters, .

I accept what you say about the effects that insurance companies changing their policy details will have on FF's cover - a valid point which I hadn't considered, but as for your view that the IRA did not target FFs - what planet have you been living on?

The IRA have often used poorly worded warnings which confuse all emergency services attending. They (& others) have planted 100s of incendary devices across the UK and even booby trapped hydrants in NI with boms designed to operate when the cover is lifted. They also targetted emergency sevices RV points and frequently used secondary devices - which obviously could only be aimed at emergency sevices

Even last week, the BBC showed libary footage of firemen being bowled over from a secondary explosion whilst attending a terrorist attack in the province. I was very close to the Staples corner bomb when it exploded in 92 (The 2nd bomb incident I had attended that night!) so am fully aware of the scale of the violence involved.

Nobody can predict what the future of terrorism holds, but please,please let us not forget or reduce the horror of past attacks, just because the former terrorists are now accepted politicians.