WHO agrees compensation fund for serious COVAX vaccine side effects

By Kate Kelland

LONDON (Reuters) – The World Health Organization has agreed a no-fault compensation plan for claims of serious side effects in people in 92 poorer countries due to get COVID-19 vaccines via the COVAX sharing scheme, resolving a big concern among recipient governments.

The program, which the WHO said was the first and only vaccine injury compensation mechanism operating on an international scale, will offer eligible people “a fast, fair, robust and transparent process,” the WHO said in a statement.

“By providing a no-fault lump-sum compensation in full and final settlement of any claims, the COVAX program aims to significantly reduce the need for recourse to the law courts, a potentially lengthy and costly process,” the statement said.

Questions of how compensation claims would be handled in the event of any serious COVID-19 vaccine side effects, which are likely to be very rare, had been a worry for countries due to get COVID-19 shots via the COVAX plan.

Countries funding their own COVID-19 vaccine procurement also plan their own liability programs.

The WHO-agreed plan, which has been under discussion for several months, is designed to cover serious side effects linked to any COVAX-distributed vaccines until June 30, 2022, to COVAX’s Advance Market Commitment-eligible economies – a group of 92 poorer states which includes most African and Southeast Asian countries.

The program will be financed initially from donor funding to the AMC as an extra charge on all doses of COVID-19 vaccines distributed through COVAX. Applications can be made via a portal at http://www.covaxclaims.com from March 31, 2021, the WHO said.

Seth Berkley, chief executive of the GAVI vaccine alliance which co-leads COVAX, said the agreement on the compensation fund was “a massive boost” for COVAX, which aims to secure equitable global access to COVID-19 vaccines.

“It helps those in countries who might have such effects, manufacturers to roll out vaccines to countries faster, and is a key benefit for lower-income governments procuring vaccines through (COVAX),” Berkley said.

The WHO said it was also working with the insurance firm Chubb to secure insurance coverage for the program.

(Reporting by Kate Kelland; Editing by Alison Williams)

Insurance brokers new business: ‘active shooter’ policies for U.S. schools

A girl writes a note on a banner placed on the fence of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to commemorate the victims of the mass shooting, in Parkland, Florida, U.S., February 21, 2018. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

By Suzanne Barlyn and Noor Zainab Hussain

(Reuters) – Insurance broker Paul Marshall can count on his phone ringing in the aftermath of a school shooting.

Since the Feb. 14 shooting at a Florida high school, where 17 people were killed and more than a dozen injured, seven South Florida school district have bought $3 million worth of “active shooter” coverage that Marshall’s Ohio-based employer, the McGowan Companies, began selling in 2016.

“Every day we get a phone call from another school district,” Marshall said.

The insurance, which is backed by XL Catlin  covers expenses tied to shootings in places such as office buildings and concert halls, and is increasingly gaining traction with schools. It pays up to $250,000 per shooting victim, for death and serious injuries, such as blindness or total disability, with additional medical coverage depending on how much insurance a district buys.

There is no detailed survey of insurance coverage at U.S. schools, but insurers say it is only within about the past year that more schools have been seeking “active shooter” and “active assailant” policies.

School districts often find that their general liability policies fall short on coverage for the cascade of bills that follow a violent incident like the mass shooting last month in Parkland, Florida, insurers and school administrators say.

The costs can include victim lawsuits, building repairs, legal fees, medical expenses and trauma counseling, as well as media consultants, accountants to handle charitable contributions, and even reconstruction of buildings where bloodshed occurred.

“This is a very sort of unique and specific issue that we are facing” Chris Parker, who heads a unit at Beazley PLC  that writes policies for political violence, terrorism and other risks, said about coverage for U.S. schools.

On Tuesday, a student who shot and critically wounded two fellow students at a Maryland high school died after exchanging gunfire with a campus security officer.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the site of the February shooting, is covered under a general liability policy through its local school district, which does not spell out whether shootings are covered, a spokeswoman said.

That was also true at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where a gunman killed 26 people in 2012. A wrongful death lawsuit filed by families of two children killed there seeking unspecified sums has dragged on since 2015.

In the case of public schools, state laws that exempt them from liability or limit the payouts can leave survivors and their families with huge medical expenses. Those laws can have exceptions and in some states, such as Florida, the legislature has authority to waive such limits.

Still, the process can take years and while school employees are generally covered through workers’ compensation insurance some shooter policies could help families meet some of the medical costs.

CROWDFUNDING FOR SURVIVORS

Some desperate families have turned to crowdfunding sites. For instance, Royer Borges is using GoFundMe to raise $1 million for his son Anthony, a Parkland student who has undergone eight surgeries since being shot five times during the massacre.

Anthony has insurance through a government sponsored-program for children, but it is unclear how much it will cover, his lawyer Alex Arreaza said.

The privately-owned McGowan Companies, fielded 10 times the number of queries in February about shooting coverage and inked three times more policies than a year before, according to Marshall.

Some coverage has been around since 2011, but more insurers, including Beazley, XL Catlin, Hiscox Ltd <HSX.L> have launched such policies since 2016, as mass shootings showed no sign of abating.

For example, insurance broker Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group  recently began selling coverage to help terror and mass shooting victims, including at schools, and a Munich unit in June began offering schools $100,000 in additional coverage for reimbursement of violent event expenses.

Premiums can range anywhere from $1,400 per year for $1 million in coverage for a small private school to $50,000-$100,000 for a $5 million to $10 million policy for a large public school district, industry executives said.

While one insurance executive described the market for school shooter policies as “embryonic” sales have been rising. As a result, premiums have come to about a third of what they cost two years ago, Marshall said. He is now developing a policy that covers construction costs for school districts that want to demolish buildings where shootings occurred.

In 2013, officials in Newtown, Connecticut, voted to tear down Sandy Hook Elementary School and the state gave the town $50 million for the new building.

A Florida school safety law signed on March 9 includes $25.3 million to replace the building at the Parkland high school where the shooting occurred.

Church Mutual Insurance Co in Merrill, Wisconsin, which insures private and religious schools nationwide, has been fielding calls from customers who want to raise coverage beyond the $50,000 per victim and up to $300,000 per violent incident it already offers through its general liability policies, said chief underwriting officer Ed Hancock.

Nate Walker, vice president of sales at insurance wholesaler Special Markets Insurance Consultants (SMIC), an AmWINS Group Inc unit, said the company considered a name change for its “Active Shooter Insurance Program,” offered since 2014 as part of a broader package aimed at schools, because it was a tough-sell.

“The more events that happened, the more we came to say there’s no reason to call this anything other than what it is,” Walker said. “You can’t really sugarcoat this.”

(Reporting by Suzanne Barlyn in New York and Noor Zainab Hussain in Bengaluru; Additional reporting Carolyn Cohn in London; Editing by Lauren Tara LaCapra and Tomasz Janowski)

As California fires blaze, homeowners fear losing insurance

Local residents react as numerous homes burn on a hillside during a wind driven wildfire in Ventura. REUTERS/Mike Blake

By Suzanne Barlyn

(Reuters) – California homeowners and regulators have a new fear about wildfires ravaging the state: that insurers will drop coverage.

Massive, out-of-season fires in northern and southern California are causing billions of dollars in claims and challenging expectations of when and where to expect blazes. State law gives insurers more leeway to drop coverage than to raise rates, and some are taking the opportunity, concerning California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.

Homes in the Sierra Nevada foothills were dropped after wildfires swept through the region in recent years, and some other Northern California homes also have been cut from rosters, Jones said.

“We may see more of it,” he added in an interview. Insurers must renew fire victims’ policies once, but after that homeowners could be driven to unusual, expensive policies.

Retired firefighter Dan Nichols of Oroville, California was surprised when Liberty Mutual dropped his coverage this year, following a wildfire in the region.

“I was shocked and angry,” said Nichols, 70, by email.

Liberty Mutual must “responsibly manage” its overall exposure to California’s wildfires as part of a strategy to safeguard its ability to pay homeowners’ claims, a spokesman said. The insurer still issues policies in California and its strategy is not in response to recent fires, he said.

Nichols found a better deal through AAA, but others are not as lucky. In San Andreas, a community northeast of San Francisco, homeowners typically use specialty insurers, known as “surplus lines carriers,” for policies that cost about 20 to 40 percent more than a mainstream insurer, said Fred Gerard, who owns an insurance agency in the area.

Insurers must be cautious by not covering too many homes in one area, said Janet Ruiz, a spokeswoman for the industry’s Insurance Information Institute. “They tend to spread their risk so they can pay claims,” Ruiz said.

COMPUTER MODELS

Drier weather and higher variability of weather patterns often seen as effects of climate change have led insurers to turn to new computer models that provide house-by-house predictions of risk, using factors such as local topography and brush cover, a change from past practices that were based on a region’s history of blazes.

“Relying solely on company history leaves many (insurers) exposed,” said Matt Nielsen, Senior Director, Global Governmental and Regulatory Affairs at modeler RMS. A new wave of models coming out next year will “revolutionize the way insurers understand and manage risk for wildfires,” he said.

“You can’t control mother nature, but you can identify her target zones,” wrote rival Verisk Analytics Inc in a brochure for its FireLine model.

Jones said the state was reviewing the new models, partly in light of drier weather conditions, more frequent, unpredictable and severe fires, and climate change.

A California poll by consumer advocacy group United Policyholders found that computer scoring was a reason for a significant number of policy cancellations in the last few years.

United Policyholders Executive Director Amy Bach said that the differences in scores generated by various models raised questions about their accuracy.

“We want to make sure it’s a fair system,” Bach said.

(Reporting by Suzanne Barlyn; Editing by Peter Henderson and James Dalgleish)