Close this search box.

Insurance industry condemns chaos in U.S. Capitol


Insurance industry condemns chaos in U.S. Capitol

Riot leaves four dead, widespread damage throughout the Capitol, and the question of how the federal government is covered in the event of attempted insurrection.

The fracas resulted in more than 50 arrests, four deaths and innumerable injuries as rioters left a trail of destruction throughout the seat of U.S. democracy. 

Americans watched in astonishment yesterday (Jan. 6, 2021) as a violent mob broke through barricades and lines of police to overrun the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., in an attempt to prevent Congress from conducting the ceremonial counting of Electoral College votes.

The disorderly mob left a trail of destruction throughout the Capitol Building. The riot left four dead, at least 14 police injured and resulted in more than 50 arrests.

Insurance industry leaders were quick to condemn the violence.

“We are in the business of protecting American families, businesses, individuals, communities, and the larger economy,” David A. Sampson, president and CEO of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said in a press release. “The actions taking place in Washington, D.C., today threaten the very pillars of our country.”

Following a four-hour lockdown, the joint session of Congress resumed and certified the election results.

“The top priority of independent insurance agents and brokers is and has always been keeping people and property safe and protected. Yesterday’s violence at the U.S. Capitol was appalling and inexcusable,” Bob Rusbuldt, Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc. (The Big “I”) president & CEO, said in a press release. “The Big ‘I’ strongly condemns those who endangered lives and desecrated this powerful symbol of our democracy. We will continue to advocate for safety and security for all Americans and for adhering to the United States Constitution, as our country moves forward after this disturbing incident.”

Noting all Americans have a responsibility to speak out against “the violence and display of demagoguery” yesterday, Evan G. Greenberg, chairman and CEO of Chubb, said in a statement: “This is not who we are as a nation, and our democracy must be protected. Whether one likes the results of our election or not, the citizens of our country have spoken. Our election process as reaffirmed by our courts and government agencies was fair and lawful. We look to all of our elected leaders from both parties to set an example by their respect and active support for the orderly transfer of power and their condemnation of false claims of election fraud.  The confirmation of the electoral results last night by Congress was a powerful affirmation of our democracy.  We should all hope for a new era of respect and decency as we meet the many common challenges facing our nation.”

Is the Fed covered for this?

While the dust is still settling and no estimates on the cost from the riot have been released, it is important to note that the U.S. government is self-insured due to the enormity of the costs involved if it were to work through regular markets, according to the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I).

From a liability perspective, it is likely the federal Tort Claim Act, which says one cannot sue a government entity without its express permission, should protect the federal government from any lawsuits stemming from the estates of those who died during the riot, according to the Triple-I.

“That said, there could be an issue with the fact the government knew about the demonstration. So they should have been better prepared to remain in order so that this would never cross that line,” Loretta L. Worters, vice president of media relations for Triple-I, explained.

She noted the legal question now becomes: Was the government’s failure to maintain order and safety palpably unreasonable?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts


Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote