In another thread I read that some insurance policies and
airline ticket return policies do not guarantee payment
or refund respectively in the event of an act of war.
This got me thinking if perhaps Bush declared the plane
attacks an act of war in order to bring these clauses into
effect.
So I ask, what economic benefits are there to having these
clauses come into effect and what drawbacks? How would the
economic impact differ had it not been declared an act of
war?
IANAL and IANAIA, but I believe the President can say that Tuesday’s events were an “Act of War”, but that doesn’t have the same effect as Congress passing a declaration of war against a particular nation. Then all sorts of new rules go in to effect.
Not sure it answers anything, but the FedEx site said simply it would not honor any delayed-delivery claims.
Of course they probably already had some language about airline closures, just to account for another air controller strike.
I couldn’t find anything on their site regarding anything but generalities. It’s obvious that anything shipped starting Wednesday – maybe Tuesday – shouldn’t even be expected to be delivered on-time, and people shipping stuff would know that.
On the other hand, FedEx did not say that they wouldn’t honor their guarantees for packages already sent under their guarantee. Despite the tradgedy, I’m certain that FedEx is doing something for those important customers that already had packages in their channel during the occurance of this tradgedy.
Any evidence of that?
On tonight’s local news, they said Northwest would give a full refund to anyone cancelling tickets held up through 9/25. Invoking the “exception that proves the rule” clause, I take this to mean they didn’t have to do it, but thought it best for business / PR / political / patriotic / moral reasons.
– Beruang
The President can’t declare war only Congress so it doesn’t matter what he says.
To me he seems to be using the phrase as a metaphor. Like the WAR ON DRUGS. Obviously that isn’t a real war but it means more of a concerted action than just the police.
You know he will use MORE resources than ever.
I started a thread in “In My Humble Opinion” cause it appears to me companies are starting now to use this as an excuse.
IMHO, the distinction between an ‘Act of War’ and a ‘Declaration of War’ is more relevant to political expediency than any legal significance it might bear legally.
The main reason for western politicians characterising what happened on Tuesday as an ‘Act of War’ rather than a “terrorist action” (or similar) was than it made it possible to invoke Article Five of the NATO Treaty – politicians also buttressed that characterisation (to further oil the wheels of primarily non-US public support) by adding nicely digestible sound bites like “attack on civilisation”, “freedom under threat”, etc. Kind of a ‘belt and braces’ approach just in case they’d misjudged the (non-US) public mood for action against an enemy not as clearly defined (as a ‘Nation’) as has been the case historically.
My understanding is that most US based Insurance Policies do cover ‘acts of terrorism’ (unlike their European counterparts) so the characterisation isn’t relevant for that purpose, nor is it necessary for any subsequent criminal prosecutions (the actual charges or jurisdictional issues).
It may have some bearing on the many civil cases pursuant to the tragedy in as much as liability (primarily against the Airlines and Airports for security lapses) will be established on a ‘balance of probability’ and then financial apportionment basis – IMHO, all of that is difficult to judge because it depends on if, how and with what weight the lawyers can build into their prosecution arguments (with advantage) the differential between ‘war’ and terrorism. To my mind and in terms of compensation for victims, it is debateable whether ‘war’ or terrorism’ is likely to more influence the size of any civil award but…IINAL.
However, I do tend to think the ‘war’ characterisation is primarily connected with building an international alliance and buttressing public support of same.
I suggest researching ‘act of war’ on the net for more information. e.g. (worth repeating)…
David Turns is a barrister and lecturer in law at the University of
Liverpool in England.
"Until 1945, an act of war in the traditional and historical sense was
understood to mean any act by a State that would effectively
terminate the normal international law of peacetime and activate the
international law of war…
The term act of aggression has to all intents and purposes
subsumed the legal term act of war and made it irrelevant, although
act of war is still used rhetorically by States that feel threatened. … in August 1998, the U.S. Secretary of State,
Madeleine Albright, said Osama bin Laden, the reputed mastermind of
truck-bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, had “declared
war on the United States and struck first.”
Keep in mind that we are dealing with contractual clauses that are construed narrowly and in favor of the insured. What an act of war means in the political context isn’t going to be terribly meaningful in a courtroom that has been interpreting the same phrase for a couple of hundred years.
"In another thread I read that some insurance policies and
airline ticket return policies do not guarantee payment
or refund respectively in the event of an act of war. "
Did you see on the news where it said that OSB bought stocks in German insurance comp’s that insured WTC? That was his method for making money doing this. That could be why they don’t want insurance comp’s to pay.