Are insurance companies paying for damages resulted from riots?

I cannot speak for American insurance policy but up here there is no insurance for rioting or civil unrest, war, and so on. If an airplane lands on it we are all good though. a reply to: DeathSlayer

CNN is saying this is a race war. Insurance companies do not pay for damages from a war. If this is accepted, many claims will be denied

a reply to: DeathSlayer

They can get a federal bailout like they get with weather catastrophes...I for one do not feel bad for insurance companies...there are far more people paying into and never having to use it than there are people who actually make claims...the insurance companies are their to make money. It's a ridiculous law that you need to have insurance to drive a car. Should be my choice weather to insure or not..and if someone wrecks my car and I failed to insure it, that's on me...

a reply to: DeathSlayer

You actually think we will make it far enough to sit down and do paperwork?

Im pretty sure paperwork of all forms is becoming quickly irrelevant...

I sorta think the whole thing is collapsing on its own weight. I don't see how insurance companies will remain solvent to help anyone anywhere in that world of tomorrow ...

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: DeathSlayer

They don't have much choice but to pay.
The part that gets glossed over is that insurance companies will probably now refuse to cover property in the effected areas.

That or the rates will be unaffordable.

Then we will hear that no businesses are operating in minority areas.
Well duh...

As stated above, it is very common for insurance policies to exclude damage caused by rioting/civil disturbance.

So no, many/most of the policies will not be paying out, and the owners will be out of luck.

a reply to: DeathSlayer
Much depends on the terms of the policies. My house insurance (in England) excludes damage caused "by acts of terrorism" (this was an amendment notified a coupls of years back).

a reply to: DeathSlayer

IIRC a car salesman was caught on camera burning his cars for sale during the riots in Kenosha. I'm sure quite a few business owners that weren't doing so well were "lucky" enough to have there businesses burnt down.

Insurance shouldn't pay. Go after all the corporations that funded and bragged about funding the chaos.
Liability is on these companies and they should be destroyed financially.
Then let's talk about Trump playing both sides and financing the corporations with stolen tax dollars, then bitching about it.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
Insurance rates will probably skyrocket for those who stay in Portland and the other cities currently being damaged.
Many businesses will not build back and who can blame them? The people of these cities will have years to reflect and realize exactly how much they’ve lost. It’s a shame.

How y’all liking “Build Back Better” Portland and Kenosha? I bet you didn’t realize they needed to burn everything down first.

This is the knock-on effect of the riots.

Insurance costs in liberal urban areas will go up materially.

And I don’t mean business insurance alone. I mean homeowners/renters/auto/etc. Risk is just too high to have “low rates”. Plus, people hate insurance companies. They uniformly suck to deal with and sell a product we all need in today’s society but no one wants. They also like making money, so rest assured your claims will be scrutinized/denied/reduced and your rates will go through the roof in Seattle, Portland, San Fran, Atlanta, Minneapolis, etc. While I think insurance companies are pretty much the lowest of the financial services fruits, and they have a long and crooked lobbying history in DC, you do need insurance. So, people will go where it’s cheaper and they don’t hAve to worry about rocks bashing their car to pieces when it’s parked on the street (or their storefronts destroyed, shops looted/merchandise destroyed).

That could, potentially, be a tailwind to the growing number of people who are exiting urban centers. This the leaves the urban center with people who don’t contribute to society - and the city declines.

Liberal Utopias are pretty expensive to live in - and getting more expensive...

Great post OP.

Once again, Insurance will not pay the claims from riot damage.

The Commies are literally destroying these cities. New businesses might pop back up someday, but the ones that have been destroyed most recently will most likely never rebuild.

They're burning it all down and it will never be back.

originally posted by: TomLawless
Once again, Insurance will not pay the claims from riot damage.

The Commies are literally destroying these cities. New businesses might pop back up someday, but the ones that have been destroyed most recently will most likely never rebuild.

They're burning it all down and it will never be back.

The race riots in the 1960's are what turned inner-city neighborhoods into "retail deserts" where almost every store was closed. Most of those neighborhoods are still like that today, because no sane person wants to invest the time and money to build a business in a place where it's most likely going to be robbed/burned/both.

The businesses will rebuild in the suburbs, or some other nearby city where the mayor will protect them, not cheer on their destruction.

I have to congratulate the mayor of Detroit, Mike Duggan. So far, Detroit hasn't seen any significant unrest. I'm pretty sure I know the reason: Duggan actually cares for the city and its people, and for the last decade or so has been trying to bring businesses and people back into the city. He does not plan to sit back and watch all his hard work go up in flames (literally & figuratively).

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: TomLawless
Once again, Insurance will not pay the claims from riot damage.

The Commies are literally destroying these cities. New businesses might pop back up someday, but the ones that have been destroyed most recently will most likely never rebuild.

They're burning it all down and it will never be back.

The race riots in the 1960's are what turned inner-city neighborhoods into "retail deserts" where almost every store was closed. Most of those neighborhoods are still like that today, because no sane person wants to invest the time and money to build a business in a place where it's most likely going to be robbed/burned/both.

The businesses will rebuild in the suburbs, or some other nearby city where the mayor will protect them, not cheer on their destruction.

I was wondering about that one, thought I read about this before -- my bookworm memory was indeed correct on food/retail desert origins.

No sane business owner is going to want to sink money into a hellhole for zero returns and a potential massive loss deep into the red for simply being there to begin with. And insurance being a business, I'm actually damn surprised insurance companies aren't refusing claims more often yet, or dropping clients in droves in these areas.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

No they aren't paying.

Policies will cover some of the costs, but not enough for most of these small businesses.

In Minneapolis, the costs of demolition alone are far outstripping the amount of reimbursement from insurance. The $25 to $50,000 insurance check isn't going to cover the $150,000 to $300,000 cost of having what's left of the building demolished which will be charged to you.

Could have sworn I heard that insurance wont cover damages from riots.

I think suing the local governments will go pretty well in places that the mayors or others have supported the riots. Sue the mayor and city seems a slam dunk to me.

Insurance can cover the losses. It all depends on how the policy is written and what the client wanted to pay for. There will be deductibles for any covered loss. Most small businesses work with a broker or agent for their coverage so they don't need internal staff.

Given that the agent can be sued by the client for failure to properly advise or offer coverage, most do a pretty good job of being sure the client is aware of what is and isn't covered.

It would be a real stretch to have them defined as an "act of God". Most courts or state insurance departments would not accept that reasoning. It is an act of man whether it was unforeseen or not.

Yes I do this for a living.