mulifat

Ira,

They have several products. Their "Travel Guard Essential" product has a feature that covers "a politically motivated Terrorist Attack"

norween

And for the non politically motivated Terrorist Attacks ?

Gretchen

And the use of a normal life insurance policy is what?

islandmom

Of course I'll call my insurance company, they were closed at the moment and in my search online I found it wasn't as easy to get as possible. It's not unheard of to be double-covered just incase something goes wrong with one company. Just because people post a question doesn't mean they don't have any responsible skills on the subject.

FainaAgain

So... we don't have travel agents, but we do have insurance agents? Why is that?

clevelandbrown

If you have an insurance agent, it is because you are willing to pay for someone to hold your hand. Insurance can certainly be bought without an agent, and I think it is common that the contract itself specifies than any representations made by anyone that conflicts with the language of the contract are invalid. So an agent's representations may have little value; a good agent will show you right in the contract the language that will address your question.

I no longer have life insurance, other than a group policy from my employment, but I have had some dealings with insurance companies over the years. My recollection is that it is very common that coverage is sharply limited (perhaps even limited to return of the premiums paid) when the death is due to an act of war. Whether terrorism is an act of war is a good question; I don't have the answer.

Now, even though this exclusion is common, one can certainly find a policy that would not include that exclusion, but it could very well be a custom written policy, and the cost would reflect the increased risk. It is common for companies to buy this type of coverage for executives who are being posted to an area where there is a risk of kidnapping or terrorism.

So rather than advise that a poster rely on their life insurance coverage, I would suggest that the poster dig out that policy and see just what exclusions are written there. If your existing policy will cover you, fine; if it won't, then it is time to look for coverage somewhere else. If you aren't skilled at digging it out online, a good agent may be your best recourse.

AnthonyGA

The risk of being a victim of terrorism is so low that it cannot be accurately calculated for insurance purposes. However, I'm sure that some insurance companies will insure against it if they can personalize coverage, or if they've had the idea of providing this insurance (which, like flight insurance, is gravy for the the insurance company, because of the essentially zero risk).

walkinaround

>>>>>
The risk of being a victim of terrorism is so low that it cannot be accurately calculated for insurance purposes.
>>>>>>

this is a bit misleading. actuaries have spent a great deal of effort modelling potential losses from terrorist attacks of various scenarios and the results are pretty grim. insurance companies cannot exclude terrorism from certain policy types like some types of workman's compensation or group life policies (i believe). these areas alone cause insurers (but mostly re-insurers) huge headaches.

due to the huge potential losses, insurers have been scrambling since sept 11 to rework policies to exclude (as much as possible) terrorism in various forms. they are most afraid of dirty bomb in NY type scenarios.

this is far from a non-issue for insurance companies and how the individual considers his own risk is about as problematic as the insurers measuring their risk.

Sue_xx_yy

Thank you multifat, glad we cleared up any misunderstanding.

For those who think anyone here is pushing life insurance, LoveItaly said: "IF [capitals mine] you have life insurance, and IF you have any questions, [to call the associated agent or company]."

This is not, in my view, a directive to purchase life insurance, or to use an insurance agent. It was only a reminder that in view of the complexity and diversity of the contracts, that if one is considering life insurance, to contact a company that specializes in same. (For some people, this could be the company that underwrites any work-related life insurance plan.)

Clevelandbrwon, to me, life insurance is generally an option to consider only if one has dependents relying on one's income. This is apparently the case for the OP.

One is (supposed) to be insuring against the possibility that one, through death or even more likely, serious injury, can no longer bring in an adequate income to support one's dependents. This can happen under a wide range of scenarios, most of which aren't covered by such travel insurance policies as I have seen, but apparently do exist (see multifat post.)

A second point to consider is that insurance companies often will stipulate that in return for collecting the benefit, one gives up one's right to any settlement awarded to any survivors. One must then weigh the chances such settlement will be awarded, and how big it will be, against any benefit offered through the policy.

Okay, I'm off to lighter topics. As Woody Allen once quipped, for him torture is being lowered into the Black Hole of Calcutta with a insurance salesman....