Abstract
In this paper we summarize the motivations for enacting the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) and provide a brief description of its provisions. We then turn to the controversy over TRIA's extension. Multiple views over the role of government in terrorism insurance have been expressed in both the academic and the popular literatures. Even the federal government is divided concerning the efficacy of TRIA. We cull what lessons we can from the debate and its many points of view. We conclude that TRIA has served a useful purpose as a temporary stopgap measure, allowing the industry much needed time to regroup in the face of a dramatically altered risk landscape.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
