Something surprising, and yet not so ...

My sister called me today and told me she had something to tell me that would make me roll my eyes, would surprise me while at the same time not surprise me, and then would make me laugh. I had all of those reactions to her tale. Here’s the story:

My sister owns a small business in Nevada.

Today, she purchased insurance for her business.

And was informed that the Federal Government requires her to carry terrorism insurance. (Surely this requirement has something to do with the Terrorism Insurance Act of 2002 – though frankly, I grew bored and could neither read nor scan the document to completion in order to verify that assumption.)

My sister will now pay an annual premium to protect her business (an alteration and bridal shop) in the event a terrorist attacks it.

Presumably, she is at low risk for such an attack, but you never know. Perhaps a terrorist will consider her shop a prime target. Or perhaps the local drive-through coffee kiosk near her business will be attacked and her business will be collateral damage. Mayhap she is more of a target than we know – she is, after all, highly regarded in her community and the loss of her business would wreak havoc with many a bride, bridesmaid, prom queen, and countless others who come to her for repairs, hems, Halloween costumes, draperies, etc. Oh! And let us not forget – she does the alterations (and per military regulations) for locals who join the Marines. Yes – that could make her a target indeed. No matter, the main point is: she is required to purchase the insurance.

My sister merely rolled her eyes, signed the papers, and wrote the check when her insurance agent informed her of this requirement.

I, on the other hand, have questions. For example:

How does the insurance policy define “terrorist” and “act of terrorism”?

Does the policy insure for both domestic and foreign terrorist attacks?

If an alleged terrorist allegedly sets a bomb off in my sister’s business, which in turn creates an inferno, does my sister’s regular fire and damage policy supersede the terrorist insurance? What if her regular policy actually provides more coverage - can she claim the damage on the policy that pays more?

And here’s a sticky wicket: my sister cannot, of course, get insurance for such things as tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., as they are deemed to be “acts of god.” But many terrorists believe they are acting on behalf of god. So if a terrorist attacks my sister’s business, and that terrorist then claims the act to be of god, is my sister’s terrorist insurance then moot?