Dear Mr Boggs,
Thank you for a very interesting and informative article on the applicability of
the Insurrection Act of 1807 to the current riots in American cities. The link
was sent to me by Laurence Jarvik in response to his article on BLM and Antifa
possibly owing reparations for damage they have caused:
https://thelatest.com/tlt/antifa-black-lives-matter-democratic-party-could-owe-americans-reparations-reparations-black-lives-matter-1596485365
It is quite helpful to have the original Insurrection Act, its applications, and
the exegesis of Latin terms defining applicability, or not, of the insurrection
exclusion to insurance claims.
I gather from your article that insurance companies will pay damage claims due
to rioting regardless of whether the Insurrection Act is invoked. This
conclusion appears to be based on a reading of the minds of the rioters that
they do not intend to overthrow the (Federal?) Government, i.e. that the riots
are random acts not attributable to any organized plan of revolt. This raises
three questions:
(1) What was the purpose of the bricks, shields, fireworks explosives, lasers,
and incendiary devices delivered to rioters? Were these deliveries made by some
organization that supplied funds, transportation, and staff, and if so, would
that level of organization fit the legal definition of insurrection?
(2) A novel feature of the current riots is that Mayors and Governors appear to
be encouraging them or are 'in cahoots with' the rioters. (That's not Latin, but
I trust the meaning is clear.) Local officials' explicit orders to police to
refrain from taking action to quell violent law-breaking, their sudden removal
of funds from police departments, disbanding of plain-clothes police units in at
least one city (New York), and their public endorsement of rioters' political
goals indicate a substantial degree of collaboration with those engaged in
violence, arson, and other illegal activities causing widespread property damage
(as well as loss of life, and injury). Indeed, unprecedented though it may be
since the Civil War, if any insurrection may be said to exist, it is one in
which insurrectionists have ALREADY CAPTURED local and State Governments. The
question then becomes: Would the insurrection exclusion apply to an effort by
local and State Governments, using BLM and Antifa as their militia, to overthrow
the Federal Government?
(3) If later evidence were to disclose a substantial degree of insurrectionist
organization, planning, intent, and purpose behind the riots in 20 or more
American cities, how would such evidence affect the insurrection exclusion? I
can only speculate on the nature of the evidence that might be found, but there
could be a trail of documents, emails, and phone conversations related to the
purchase and deployment of vehicles, explosives, lasers, incendiary devices, and
other materials and equipment not normally readily at hand. Websites and social
media sites have enabled calls for 'volunteers' who are paid to assemble at
pre-arranged times and places to await instructions from organizers. Of course
the language of such calls fits the 'peaceful demonstration' narrative whereby
said 'peaceful demonstrations' 'intensify', as one news source put it, into
violent rioting. Would such evidence 'trigger' the insurrection exclusion?
I am neither an insurance expert, nor do I have any bias (that I am aware of) in
favor of or against insurance companies. I am certainly sympathetic, as anyone
must be, to the business owners and individuals all across the United States who
have suffered collectively billions of dollars of damage to their property
caused by rioters and their collaborators in local and State Government. For the
sake of the communities that rely on the services those businesses provide, I
hope they can be made whole as soon as possible.
If insurance companies do not seek relief from claims-payments obligations via
the insurrection exclusion, then the cost of the damage from the current riots
will likely be paid by policy-holders in general, through increased premiums.
That might be considered an instance of the fundamental insurance principle of
risk-spreading. That, however, raises the further question of 'moral hazard'
similar to what occurred with Federal bailouts of mega-banks during the last
U.S. financial crisis. Could insurance payouts reduce societal incentives to
place financial responsibility where it belongs, namely on the rioters
themselves, and their sponsors? The risk, from both an insurance-company and
societal perspective, is that further riots (whether or not they are deemed
insurrections) with even greater loss of life, injury, and property damage will
be 'baked-in' to any arrangement that does not exact financial responsibility
from those who are in fact responsible.
Again, thanks for your article, which as you can see from the above, is
thought-provoking.
Sincerely,
Peter Miller
