Weird insurance exemption

ollopa

ollopa

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
599
Display Name
Display name:
ollopa
I was reading over the fine-print and was wondering about:

This policy does not cover claims caused by:

  • Any hostile detonation of any weapon of war employing atomic or nuclear fission and/or fusion or other like reaction or radioactive force or matter;
  • the radioactive properties of, or a combination of radioactive properties with toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of, any other radioactive material in the course of carriage as cargo,
    including storage or handling incidental thereto;
  • ionizing radiations or contamination by radioactivity from, or the toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of, any other radioactive source whatsoever.


I can sort of understand them worrying about radioactive cargo but atomic weapons? When was the last time there was a claim made because a GA pilot lost his aircraft to a nuclear explosion?

Must have been a slow week at the insurance office :rolleyes2:
 
That has been a standard clause in home owners policies for 35 years... I guess they figured out it will work with aviation stuff too...:dunno::redface:
 
I believe my car policy has a clause about failure to pay for damages incurred during a riot.

Glad I don't live in Baltimore, Ferguson, LA, or any other place where people tell police what to do.
 
We don't need that exclusion in Iowa City. That's because nuclear weapons are banned from our town by city ordinance.

Really.
 
NoHeat said:
We don't need that exclusion in Iowa City. That's because nuclear weapons are banned from our town by city ordinance.

Really.
Click to expand...


Huh, I live in Santa Cruz, CA and we are too a "Nuclear Free Zone" by declaration...and we have a sign that says so and keeps us safe. Guess I am good with that exclusion.

...this is also the same community that passed a resolution by the city council to make pot crimes a "low priority" for law enforcement!
 
I am sure the *******s in iran will stop at the town limit out of respect for that sign.
 
Good thing you guys have those laws. Nobody can bomb you now.
 
You should read the terms you agreed to when installing iTunes.

I.e. You can't use your iPad to design a nuclear bomb or engage in chemical warfare.
 
Santa-Cruz-nuclear-free-080.jpg


Its like a magic force field around the city that keep us safe!

...please see city council resolution #2 I described for rationalization.
 
Last edited:
NoHeat said:
We don't need that exclusion in Iowa City. That's because nuclear weapons are banned from our town by city ordinance.

Really.
Click to expand...
LoL. My city still has an ordinance which makes it a disorderly conduct offense to "create a disagreeable bodily odor in an elevator"... no joke, it's against the law here to fart in an elevator.
 
I was one of those guys in physics class back in the 80s that tried to design a nuke. It's a ton of math with all the energies to consider, and the shaped charges with the neutron spike of the initiator(shotgun slug method) being timed just right.

Dept head got wind of it, and asked me to please stop. It had been done before and it's a lot of paperwork that he didn't want to deal with again.

If an atomic warhead is detonated close enough to damage your plane, you will have other things to worry about besides your hull damage.
 
Acts of war and force majeur have been standard disclaimer's in many policies outside aviation for years so it stands to reason it would apply to planes.

What they're saying is "if we're gone or you're gone or we're all gone from a nuke or nukes, we don't pay up."

Can you imagine the claims and all of them would be all at once if even just one or two cities were hit.. can you say 'instant insolvency' boys and girls? :rolleyes:
 
War, nukes, inherent vice, are long-standing typical property insurance exclusions, among others.
 
NoHeat said:
We don't need that exclusion in Iowa City. That's because nuclear weapons are banned from our town by city ordinance.

Really.
Click to expand...

Oh, we have enough of them in ND to send some your way if need be :)
 
I should point out that there is already a separate exemption for acts of war and hostility, as well as riots. They chose to specifically call out atomic weapons as if that was necessary. I find it interesting that they're obsessing over nuclear war--not just because of its unlikelihood and redundancy but also because who's going to be filing these claims after America is nuked? I'd have thought they would exempt getting shot down for busting a TFR before the atomic weapons clause, and maybe a Death Star clause afterwards :D
 
txflyer said:
Acts of war and force majeur have been standard disclaimer's in many policies outside aviation for years so it stands to reason it would apply to planes.

What they're saying is "if we're gone or you're gone or we're all gone from a nuke or nukes, we don't pay up."

Can you imagine the claims and all of them would be all at once if even just one or two cities were hit.. can you say 'instant insolvency' boys and girls? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What would they need money for? One good nuke and there would be nothing left to insure. :dunno:
 
ollopa said:
I should point out that there is already a separate exemption for acts of war and hostility, as well as riots. They chose to specifically call out atomic weapons as if that was necessary. I
Click to expand...

More likely than an act of war by a state actor is the detonation of a dirty bomb by a independent terrorist group. Such a device could create a very large insurance claim if insurers didn't put that exclusion in there.
 
txflyer said:
Acts of war and force majeur have been standard disclaimer's in many policies outside aviation for years so it stands to reason it would apply to planes.

What they're saying is "if we're gone or you're gone or we're all gone from a nuke or nukes, we don't pay up."

Can you imagine the claims and all of them would be all at once if even just one or two cities were hit.. can you say 'instant insolvency' boys and girls? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yep. This is the same reason flood insurance is problematic for private carriers.
 
ollopa said:
I should point out that there is already a separate exemption for acts of war and hostility, as well as riots. They chose to specifically call out atomic weapons as if that was necessary. I find it interesting that they're obsessing over nuclear war--not just because of its unlikelihood and redundancy but also because who's going to be filing these claims after America is nuked? I'd have thought they would exempt getting shot down for busting a TFR before the atomic weapons clause, and maybe a Death Star clause afterwards :D
Click to expand...

You would be surprised how judges will try to find absolutely any loophole to permit coverage for something obviously intended to be excluded. The result is all of these convoluted and redundant insurance clauses to limit the coverage to what was really intended.
 
Shawn said:
Santa-Cruz-nuclear-free-080.jpg


Its like a magic force field around the city that keep us safe!

...please see city council resolution #2 I described for rationalization.
Click to expand...

Just like in "Unforgiven". The sign at the entrance of town telling newcomers they need to turn in their guns to the sheriff. So if you don't turn in your nukes when you ride into town, Sheriff Little Bill Daggett will find you in the saloon and beat the **** out of you.
 
Neal Howard said:
LoL. My city still has an ordinance which makes it a disorderly conduct offense to "create a disagreeable bodily odor in an elevator"... no joke, it's against the law here to fart in an elevator.
Click to expand...

:lol:

The workaround there is always make sure there are three or more people in the elevator if you have flatulence issues. You can always blame one of the other two then. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top