The insurance and commercial real estate industries expressed relief that the process is moving along, never mind the additional clauses. The “seven-year term would give businesses the ability to plan, finance and execute large-scale projects, which are essential to support economic growth,” says Martin DePoy, the Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism Steering committee coordinator. “The bill also would eliminate the existing legislation's distinction between foreign and domestically sponsored acts of terror, which recent history has shown is no longer meaningful.”

“Amid the expanding threat of foreign and domestic terrorism–and continuing absence of a private marketplace for terrorism insurance–TRIA provides much-needed stability to the marketplace,” says Jeffrey DeBoer, president and CEO of the Real Estate Roundtable. Such praise, though, hides what has been at times a fierce inter- and intra-industry debate on what the measure should include. The most contentious issue is the support for damages caused by nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attacks.

Critics of the measure say it would raise property rates dramatically. This type of coverage won't be subject to pricing controls, according to Aaron Davis, director of national property brokerage at Aon Corp. Also, its inclusion could be problematic because it could affect conventional terrorism pricing and capacity, making the latter more expensive and scarce. “While nuclear, biological and chemical threats are real and something for which the insurance and real estate industries must prepare, the immediate risks are conventional attacks,” he says.