Home Owners policies not likely to cover your loss in the event of nuclear accident

[PuraVidaDreamin]

I was wondering about this just the other day, and need to call my home owners insurance.
I live near an aging nuclear power plant that is offline more than on, and recently informed
The community that it had been leaking tritium into the groundwater, but at safe, acceptable levels....
If there is such a thing.

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/251-mjt


February 2, 2014 -- (TRN) -- [This story UPDATED as of Feb. 3, 2014 at 1:45 PM EST ] Insurance Companies in the United States have begun notifying customers they will no longer have ANY coverage whatsoever for anything relating to nuclear energy claims. Fallout, radiation sickness, property damage from radiation - all EXCLUDED. This begs the question: If the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima power plant in Japan is as harmless to Americans as the government and "scientists" are telling us, why are Insurance companies specifically EXCLUDING coverage for nuclear energy related claims? (Hint: The government is lying about the danger.)
TRN has a PDF of one such notice being sent by Traveler's Insurance Company. You can read it for yourself below.

Letters being sent by U.S. Insurance companies are notifying policy holders of an important change to their coverage. Letter sent by one major insurance company read as follows:

Dear Policyholder;
Thank you for choosing Travelers. We are providing advance notice of changes affecting your renewal policy or notification of renewal premium. Please consult Travelers Service Center for guidance in reviewing the information contained in this notice.

Your renewal policy will provide changes in coverage because of underwriting judgment based on an evaluation of your
individual risk exposures and/or loss history.

The following is changed on your renewal:
Coverage Change Details
IL 00 21 09 08 NUCLEAR ENERGY LIABILITY EXCLUSION ENDORSEMENT FORM HAS BEEN ADDED TO YOUR POLICY

[TexasTowelie]

1. Thus creating a specialty insurance coverage.

Surplus lines carriers will start offering the nuclear energy liability endorsement on their policies. Since surplus lines carriers also aren't rate regulated so they can charge whatever premium the "free market" deems necessary to cover their losses and pad their profit lines.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

2. This is just wrong!

And criminal!

[TexasTowelie]

7. While I understand your sentiments, it isn't wrong or criminal.

Insurance companies have created exclusion endorsements for decades. Your policy also excludes for riots, war and "acts of God".

When I was younger, my parents owned an older home and the only way that we were able to heat it was by using gas heaters. My father paid premiums for years without realizing that was a specific endorsement excluding the use of gas heaters. I knew that if the house ever did burn down that the insurance company would have weaseled out of paying the claim because he violated the exclusion endorsement.

I agree that there is an inherent risk having a nuclear energy company in proximity and upwind in a contamination zone. However, most policyholders don't consider it to be a significant enough risk that they would be willing to pay an increased premium for that coverage. By having the exclusion endorsement within the policy, it removes the ambiguity an insurance company faces as to whether coverage is provided and has the positive social benefit of maintaining rates at a lower level. Those people who feel that a nuclear energy incident is likely can then pay the additional premium to obtain that coverage endorsement.

I know that it is controversial to make this point, but insurance is state-sanctioned (and in some instances state-mandated) gambling. It is your decision as to whether you want to wager against the risk you are encountering. I suggest checking with your insurance agent to determine whether a specific endorsement is being offered if it will ease your mind. My guess is that most homeowners will never see that exclusion endorsement and even fewer will investigate whether they can purchase that coverage.

[SoCalNative]

3. You do know that Turner Radio Network

is a right-wing site founded by white-nationalist Hal Turner, don't you? He doesn't currently have anything to do with it because legally he can't due to his federal convictions.

[enough]

4. This has been true for decades, at least in PA.

When we were trying to prevent the building of the Limerick nuclear plants near Philadelphia, we thought this would be a useful piece of information to try to get the people in the area to care about the issue. It wasn't, and it still isn't.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

8. I mentioned it to a couple of surgeons

Today in the OR, and they seemed shocked by that. We have Entergy on the run
Here, their favorability has declined significantly. Maybe this info might be useful
At this time. We have to try.

[yawnmaster]

5. My insurance company hasn't said anything...I found this news at that site much more worrisome...

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/206-visually-confirmed-enormous-craft-detected-on-moon