insurance for firefighters at terrorist incidents

[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 bombs 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 in a shop in west London when a firebomb activated some years ago and 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 and who was in the line of fire..

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.

[Chris Houston]

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

My personal opinion is that it would cost insurers very little, not that I claim to be an expert in underwriting or actuarial matters.

I think you make a very good point, those who chose a career who's primary function is to protect the public probably ought to be afforded this protection, however, it's not really the role of profit making insurance companies to deal with that issue.

[fireftrm]

Messy - your point about the IRA targetting RVP points is valid, but then again as you are no doubt aware the Fire Service never attended the RVP point and set up their command away from it, leaving the police at the RVP. No reason to forget what the past attacks meant, btu they were on a somwhat small scale comparef to 9/11 and I understand only one (yes one too many) firefighter was demonstrably killed as a result of IRA action ans that 28 years ago. The new dimension of terrorism we face is one of totally indisuished hatred of all our society and with never a warning.  Emergency service (and other) workers sent to dela with the aftermath have always been in danger, but the level of that risk has increased and the possibilty now exists that we can be sent into a CBRN incident where before it was conventional. The risk increase is the probelm, together with the potential los sof cover by attending.

Chris -
Airline staff. Yes loads of them and many, many unaffected flights every hour. But the risk is there - demonstrated throughout the world. Hijackers don't only fly into buildings. Compared to an office job do they not have a higher risk of terrorist involvement? Please allow me to dispel any ideas that I only get my opinions based on media, give me some credit.
Bus suicide bombings are a regular occurence, maybe not here, but then again neither was 9/11.
Profit making companies have no part to play in dealing with the issue? Well not if it may affect their profitability, no! After all they should not be expected to have a conscience? No, no more that they should expect any response to aid their business continuity, or to reduce their losses by emergency service interventions. Dave's suggestion that the total anticipated losses would be borne by the entire customer base is valid, so no loss of profit. Having said that it is society's role to support those it expects to support it, make the clause illlegal and society will have to pay. Fine by me.

[Chris Houston]

Chris -
Airline staff. Yes loads of them and many, many unaffected flights every hour. But the risk is there - demonstrated throughout the world. Hijackers don't only fly into buildings. Compared to an office job do they not have a higher risk of terrorist involvement? Please allow me to dispel any ideas that I only get my opinions based on media, give me some credit.
Bus suicide bombings are a regular occurence, maybe not here, but then again neither was 9/11.
Profit making companies have no part to play in dealing with the issue? Well not if it may affect their profitability, no! After all they should not be expected to have a conscience? No, no more that they should expect any response to aid their business continuity, or to reduce their losses by emergency service interventions. Dave's suggestion that the total anticipated losses would be borne by the entire customer base is valid, so no loss of profit. Having said that it is society's role to support those it expects to support it, make the clause illlegal and society will have to pay. Fine by me.

There is a risk that aliens might land in my bedroom and eat my marshamallows, but what is important is to measure the risk.  

No plane has ever been used as a weapon in the UK.  No bus driver has ever been killed by terrorists in the line of duty in mainland Britain.  More office staff, more shop staff, more shoppers, public and passengers have been injured than bus drivers or airline staff.  One must measure these risks and if one does, one will conclude that they are so low that we ought to spend our time worrying about the real risks.

The SUN and the BBC might advise of us the terrible dangers that terrorists pose to us, but so many more people die for heart disease, from road traddic accidents, from slips, trip and falls, from the flu and from mundane illnesses and from cocconuts falling on their heads than from terrorism.

Again, I suggest, buy an insurance policy that suits your needs, or ask your employers to provide the cover you need.

It was insurance companies that set up fire brigades and the government who took over the responsibility for property protection.  So the responsibility lies with them, the government, to solve these issues.

[fireftrm]

Chris you said
"or ask your employers to provide the cover you need"
- interesting comment - this the basis of the dispute between the firefighters and Somerset, or indeed the rest of us and the government. I take it you will now fully support our campaign?

I wholeheartedly agree with your pints about the real risks. Funny though, sin't it, that although firefighters have never been killed on mainland Britain by terrorist actions their personal life policies will be voided should they be so, BECAUSE those wonderful, profit making, insurance companies have decided that the risks of being killed by terrorists are too high. Die by any of the other means you suggest and your estate receives the payout. So it seems to me, that despite the societal responsibility, it is the insurance companies who are to blame. I wasn't really thinking this way until you pointed out just how low the risk is, especially in comparison to those larger ones mentioned, so they are just using this as an excuse to avoid costs to themselves after any such incident. Typical?

As to 'the government who took over responsibility' you do rather make it appear that those poor insurance companies, having spent so much time and effort to protect society, had their responsibilities taken away. As a result they no longer have any responsibility and 'have taken their bat and ball home' Rather a one-sided and spun view of history. May I correct this, with some historical fact?

Insurance companies began to employ fire brigades to serve their customers and protect their interests, such brigades being only available to fight fires occurring in premises holding policies with them. The purpose was to reduce losses. They did not help the general society. As a result of society's development town/city governance began to employ fire brigades for the public good, the costs being met by some reallocation of funds from insurance companies (as they no longer had to directly employ their own) and local taxations. Society began to expect such service and the brigades grew in number and size. As a result of problems found in mutual aid, in the preparations for the Second World War the government nationalised the Fire Service. After the war the government (national) made the running of local fire brigades the responsibility of local government (the county, or borough council).

So in short the insurance companies ran brigades to improve their profit margins and customer take up, towns/cities ran brigades to offer the service to all and then the government began running the fire service due to a war. Insurance companies now pay nothing directly toward the emergency services, and no more than any other business. Yet they have these services to thank for keeping down some of their losses. Approaches to them for assistance, financial, or for their lobbying power, fail to achieve much as that precious profit line is all they think of. Perhaps if they invested some of their great wealth in assisting us to reduce the risks themselves (and supported us when we support their customers - the public) they could show a return?

Always been a capitalist but your arguments about the insurance companies are changing my opinions, fast.

[dave bev]

comrade fireftrm, what do myself and the toddski need to do to convince you to cross the line and support the downfall of those who would aspire to create their own wealth from the toil of others?

dave bev

[Chris Houston]

Chris you said
"or ask your employers to provide the cover you need"
- interesting comment - this the basis of the dispute between the firefighters and Somerset, or indeed the rest of us and the government. I take it you will now fully support our campaign?

I don't know enough about your campaign to comment.

My person opinion (not speaking on behalf of emplyers or this board) is that employees (firefighters) ought to expect their employers to provide compensation if they are injured in the line of duty for all direct costs.  The employers should purchase insurace cover for this.

I also think that people and companies are overly worried about terrorism, especially in the context of casualy risks.   Much more mundate hazards present greater risks.  And industries such as construction, agriculture and deep sea fishing are much more hazardous.

Of course I have enormous respect to all firefighters, who regularly, put themselves in harms way to protect the public.  I just don't think it's the role of commercial enterprises (successful or otherwise) based in the UK or otherwise to solve a problem that exists between firefighters and their employers.

[fireftrm]

Chris,

I don't think it is the repsonsibility of any one commercial organisation either.

I was just rather dismayed at the way you made it appear that the  'government' was responsible and  any businesses. The government is all of us and if any commercial organisation stands to gain from some work that someone is doing then maybe they should contribute toward it? A builder, or developer would be expected to be paying for the roundabout to acces their site, not us. Well the same could be said for the losses prevented by the actions of others might suggest that insurance companies should pay something toward improving these services? The very least we might expect is support, even just lobbying, for loss prevention from them, yet it is sadly lacking.

Anyway I never thought about this until you continually pointed out the profit line of these money mountains, now I have some of my points came to mind.

As to the dispute here are the details:

16/06 On behalf of members, the FBU had demanded that the fire authority confirm that in the event of death or injury arising from a terrorist incident they will make good any shortfall in payment to FBU members and their families; and that until this happens all New Dimension activity and demands on staff to participate in New Dimension is stopped. Should the fire authority fail to conform to the Union’s request, a trade dispute would arise. Somerset fire authority failed to give those undertakings.

A letter from Somerset Assistant Chief Fire Officer Davis on 17 March confirmed that insurers do make exclusions in respect of terrorist incidents. But, having concluded that the risk of death or serious injury is remote, his response suggested that the financial impact of making good the resulting shortfall would be so huge that it would be unacceptable for the County to take ownership of the risk.

Somerset’s Chief Fire Officer, at a meeting on 19 May 2005, confirmed that arrangments would proceed for New Dimension incidents without any insurance protection in place for members and their families.

The Union has been in correspondence with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister since March 2004 over the issue of insurance cover, but steps have not been taken to remedy the matter.

While treating the issue of insurance cover as a low priority, the Government centrally and fire authorities locally such as Somerset have stressed the immediate and heightened risk of terrorist incidents. And they have pressed on with planning and preparation for New Dimension incidents.

22/07 Clive Kemp, Chief Fire Officer at Somerset Fire and Rescue Service has claimed to be “completely mystified” as to why FBU members have voted to take industrial action short of strikes over the lack of insurance cover in case of injury or death as a result of attending terrorist incidents.

However, he expressed “sympathy with the issue that the Somerset Fire Brigade are putting forward” and said “this is an issue which does not just affect Somerset.”

Describing the Government’s position as “morally reprehensible,” he added: "The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are dealing with it, although very slowly. This is an issue which should have been sorted out 18 months ago."

03/08 The union and Somerset fire and rescue service have set up a joint working party to investigate details of the personal insurance provision of Somerset fire service personnel. Some personal insurance policies - such as mortgage protection policies and life insurance - will not pay up if a firefighter is killed or injured while responding to a terrorist incident.

The group will report back to a joint meeting no later than 2 September which will aim to reach an agreement.

The industrial action will be suspended until this joint meeting. Somerset fire and rescue service have agreed not to begin any new training on Incident Response Units and High Volume Pumping units.

Operational staff will continue to respond to all emergency calls as normal during this time.

FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack who attended the meeting said: “A joint working party has been set up to assess the problem in Somerset and look at possible solutions. The aim is to help reach a solution acceptable to Somerset FBU members.

[Chris Houston]

Here are my personal opinions:

If you are suggesting that insurance companies do not lobby for good risk management then you are very wrong.  They have whole departments who do nothing but lobby for sprinklers in schools, good arson risk management etc etc.  they lobby at all levels in government, provide free training aids for fire and rescuse services (recently send one to every FRS in the UK.)  

A business owns a building, they insure the risk of that building going on fire with an insurance company (maybe based in the UK.)  The insurer charges the owner a premium based on the risk of a fire.  Due to the existance of the fire and rescuse services in the UK, the premium is lower.  It's the business that is saving money, not the insurer.

With regards to the dispute, it seems to me (no expert in liability insurance) that the employers have not purchased the cover that the employees wanted.  Is that not an internal matter?

Most property developers have to provide access roads, roundabouts, parks and all sorts for free and even maintain the roads etc for the next 25 years just to get planning permission.

[fireftrm]

Chris

Whilst I basically agree with all you said:

Wasn't really having a pop at Insurance Companies, it was when you suggested that they had no responsibility and that the 'government' took it off them in the past - a bit like making them out ot be hard done to and no longer willimng to play.

Yes they do lobby to reduce risks, but hey alos fail to support FRS when they ask for it, such as over sprinklers in domestic properties. We have tried and they are just not interested. Here your point about the costs being borne by the consumer probably brings the reasons to light.

Perhaps insurance companies should be doing the same to reducing the likely losses to their customers as many energy comapnies are doing to reduce energy consumption. Subsidised insulation and low wattage bulbs an obvious example, any examples of insurance comapnies investing in a similar fashion? I knwo of none, but then again it will be the customers responsibility to reduce the likely losses, won't it?

[Chris Houston]

To be honest, I don't have much involvement in domestic properties.  Also to an extent, was being devils adcovate, it is really in insurers interests for risks that they insure to be reduce as far as possible.

Is this true, that insurers are not giving the FRS support for domestic sprinklers?  I am saddened to hear this.  Please tell me your email address as I will look into this.

[dave bev]

im not so sure that its as cut and dried (or wet!! lol) as simply not supporting domestic sprinklers. my understanding was that the 'fire risk' element of any domestic insurance was so low in terms of attributed cost that there would be very little leeway in terms of domestic insurance premiums reduction for those properties with them installed.

dave bev