“so we were going to award the life insurance payout for a murder, but since the shooter took time to inscribe the bullets as a type of manifesto, it’s now considered a terrorist attack and is not covered under our terms.”
This is a legit argument. If the purpose of the killing is to intimidate other insurance companies, it’s terrorism, and almost all insurance companies have an exception for terrorist attacks.
It’s also why we shouldn’t be as upset when mass-shooters aren’t called out as terrorists by law enforcement and politicians. There’s insurance implications.
I mean, we should be upset about that, just upset at the ridiculousness of the insurance to not pay the victims because of the specific views of the criminal.
“so we were going to award the life insurance payout for a murder, but since the shooter took time to inscribe the bullets as a type of manifesto, it’s now considered a terrorist attack and is not covered under our terms.”
This is a legit argument. If the purpose of the killing is to intimidate other insurance companies, it’s terrorism, and almost all insurance companies have an exception for terrorist attacks.
It’s also why we shouldn’t be as upset when mass-shooters aren’t called out as terrorists by law enforcement and politicians. There’s insurance implications.
I mean, we should be upset about that, just upset at the ridiculousness of the insurance to not pay the victims because of the specific views of the criminal.
But until the insurance problem is solved, it may be better for the victims of the families not to call it terrorism.
They’re going through absolute hell. Last thing they need is an unexpected loss of a 6-figure insurance payment.