At this point in time there has not been a financially viable source of Terrorism coverage for mid-market accounts. TRUST, a sister company of CHES Special Risks Inc., has negotiated a brand new program with A (excellent) rated security to solve the uncertainty.
An International Rating Agency has just added Montreal and Toronto to their primary target zones.
Most insurance policies contain an absolute exclusion, others retain ensuing fire coverage. All CGL policies contain an uncontested Terrorism exclusion.
The possible litigation on the validity of the Terrorism exclusion on property policies has not yet been tested.
Your client may not be a target, yet collateral damage to his premises could result in a major financial burden. FEMA estimates of the radius of physical damage caused by an explosion similar to the Oklahoma City bombing indicates buildings within .7 km would sustain collateral damage. No ensuing fire coverage - glass breakage, explosion; resultant business interruption would cause most commercial accounts a substantial financial loss.
Under the Occupiers Liability Act, a commercial establishment is obligated to protect those invited onto the premises.
Precedent in the U.S. as already been set from 9/11 that failure to warn and/or provide emergency measures can result in litigation from injuries sustained from a terrorist act.
Research into the Workplace Insurance Board benefits show uncertainty as to whether benefits would be extended to employees.
All of this should be sufficient for a Professional Broker to present this cost effective option to all of their mid market clients. Would failure to do so be considered an Omission?