Breaking News

Mass shooting exposes insurance coverage gap: A.M. Best

By Rosemary Onuoha

The recent increase in mass shooting attacks has highlighted a distinct lack of insurance coverage for violent events of this nature, according to A.M. Best.


The rating agency noted that insurers have begun to respond to rising demand for active assailant insurance coverage, which carries unique features over traditional general liability policies, including risk assessment and crisis management services.

However, such coverage is offered by a limited number of companies, and A.M. Best warned that many insureds may be unaware that their existing policies do not cover active shooting incidents.

According to A.M. Best, active shooter attacks differ from acts of terrorism, which typically target specific buildings or locations and may trigger coverage from traditional terrorism policies that require property damage for coverage to apply.

Sahara Group urges enforceable policies to support climate protection in Africa(Opens in a new browser tab)

Standard terrorism policies also require that the motive be ideological, political or religious in nature, unlike active shooter attacks, for which the motive may be personal or unclear.

“This gap in general liability policies, as well as marketplace demand, has provided insurers an opportunity to offer traditional named perils coverage for a new category of risk,” A.M. Best reported.

The services included in active assailant policies vary, but a majority of insurers providing this type of coverage offer a pre-incident security vulnerability assessment.

These policies also tend to cover loss of attraction, A.M. Best said, since such an attack can stigmatize a neighborhood, business district or brand, helping with brand rehabilitation as well as to fill in revenue gaps.


All rights reserved. This material and any other digital content on this platform may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, written or distributed in full or in part, without written permission from VANGUARD NEWS.


Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.