[silverleaf]

Read the fine print. Many become void if the loss that occurs can be attributed to an act of war. We declare a state of war (against whom by the way?) and if you die in a terror attack, your life insurance most likely is void. If you travel on an airliner that is downed.... no claims for loss will be honored due to an act of war.

Other companies revert to limitations on claims. Many consumer protections against loss that we enjoy during "normal" conditions ... no longer have to be honored by insurance carriers if the customer lives in a war zone. Imagine an America going about its business without insurance backing against loss claims.

Undoubtedly there are also changes that occur in our government operations, international and domestic, if the nation is declared to be "at war", as well as federal govt arrangements with commercial businesses such as airlines and merchant shipping and suppliers of numerous goods and services.

I believe this economic blow back is one understated reason Congress has historically (since WW2) been so reluctant to make a formal declaration of war. Even Korea was never declared to be a war.

[DC Bound]

You are referring to a "war clause" on life insurance policies. They are rare, today. They were last used by the majority of insurers in the Vietnam era. Most policies in force that were written after Vietnam contain no war clause, and are payable no matter the manner of death, or where it occurs. (With exception of the suicide exception, that lasts two years.) A war clause cannot be added to a policy after the fact, and any insurer that tried to do so would be dragged to court and would lose. Because the insurance company gets to write the policy, they are presumed to have meant exactly what they said when they wrote it. Insurance companies make very bad defendants, and usually settle out of court for that reason.