On Tuesday, February 25, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing on “Reauthorizing TRIA: The State of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Market.” Witnesses from several industry groups advocated for a long-term, if not permanent, extension of the program beyond its current deadline of December 31, 2014.
“The availability and affordability of adequate insurance coverage for acts of terrorism is not only an insurance issue, but an economic one,” said RIMS President Carolyn Snow. “By providing a backstop, and assuming some of the market terrorism risk as a reinsurer, the federal government has freed up capacity in the private market that would not otherwise exist.”
Douglas Elliot, president of commercial markets for The Hartford Financial Services Group, and speaking on behalf of the American Insurance Association, argued against any sweeping changes to the current TRIA program. “A number of proposals that have been discussed could-in the name of increasing private market capacity for terrorism risk-actually lead the industry to a tipping point beyond which individual insurers would need to make difficult decisions to safeguard a company’s financial condition instead of maintaining the current level of exposure to catastrophic terrorism risk.”
Many witnesses, including W. Edward Walter, president and CEO of Host Hotels & Resorts, on behalf of the Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism, addressed the effect that TRIA’s uncertainty will have on the lending industry. “The lack of clarity around this issue will likely slow the pace of new financing, especially in the case of properties that are perceived to be a higher risk of terrorist attacks such as high profile buildings and real estate generally located in key gateway urban markets.”
When asked for the ideal duration of a TRIA extension, all of the witnesses asked for a permanent solution with ten years being a minimum timeframe for an extension.
This is the second hearing that the Senate Banking Committee has held on the issue. Committee leadership seemed to understand the urgency and expressed a desire to move on the issue sooner rather than later; however, House leadership has expressed a desire to make changes to the legislation which could slow action on an extension as those changes are debated.