Insurance Policy for Damage during Nuclear War

aleph1 on 01/05/2022 - 10:10

Aami states the following in their car insurance policy disclosure statement:

You are not covered under any section of this policy for damage, loss, cost or legal liability that is caused by or arises from or involves:

  • Radioactivity/nuclear materials:

  • action of nuclear fission including detonation of any nuclear device or nuclear weapon;

Why do they bother to delineate on the fission/fusion point?

Given that Russia's arsenal seems to consist largely of Fusion (Hydrogen) bombs, do you think I'll be OK?

I'm guess no, as they'd just state that it's an act of war, and therefore all bets are off anyway as far as they are concerned.

Automotive Car Insurance Insurance

Comments

  • Muzeeb on 01/05/2022 - 10:19
    +37

    Don't sweat the small stuff.

    • SF3 on 01/05/2022 - 10:32
      +15

      I also think, don’t sweat the stuff that are so big, as it won’t matter, as we’ll all most likely be 💀 (insurer and insuree).

    • aleph1 on 01/05/2022 - 12:10
      +3

      I'm not, but this one thing has really got me worried.

      • pharkurnell on 01/05/2022 - 12:13
        +12

        Foil hats are on sale on amazon.

        • afoveht on 01/05/2022 - 14:40
          +4

          However small (or otherwise) it may be ATM, nuclear war is a real risk. Foil hats are not required.

          • brendanm on 01/05/2022 - 14:44

            @afoveht: They stop the beta particles entering your brain.

          • pharkurnell on 01/05/2022 - 19:32
            +26

            @afoveht: if theres a nuclear war, your car insurance will be the least of your problems…

            • schquid on 02/05/2022 - 09:25
              +12

              @pharkurnell: Spot on. It's your credit rating that you really need to worry about.

              • pharkurnell on 02/05/2022 - 09:53
                +4

                @schquid: Also would need to look into mutant coverage and radioactive glowing rubble coverage

        • preddye on 03/05/2022 - 08:39
          +3

          Foil hats were introduced by the government to help them actually access our brainwaves better

      • lew380 on 02/05/2022 - 10:50
        +1

        Turn off your tv.

        • Euphemistic on 02/05/2022 - 12:19
          +2

          Why LED tvs don’t have anywhere near the radiation potential of an old CRT.

          • vid_ghost on 03/05/2022 - 11:04

            @Euphemistic: But we now have RF radiation from the wifi's and blutooth built into these TV's…

            • Euphemistic on 03/05/2022 - 12:08

              @vid_ghost: If course the ghost of video is going. To say that. You want us all to ditch digital and go back to tape.

      • Ultimate Gattai on 02/05/2022 - 16:51
        +4

        Your expecting someone to be flinging nukes at Australia? It's possible, but very unlikely, if that happens, you'll probably be a goner along with the car.

        I personally wouldn't worry about it.

      • johnno07 on 03/05/2022 - 07:31
        +3

        If you're really worried I can insure your vehicles for damage by nuclear fission.

        • lachhelix on 03/05/2022 - 08:00

          "Nuclear Insurance"

      • fredk1000 on 03/05/2022 - 22:12

        I would start digging your bunker if I was you.

    • Ozschmargain on 01/05/2022 - 12:36
      -4

      (and its ALL small stuff). Especially the 'rona.

    • kabammi on 04/05/2022 - 12:21

      It's there because it would affect every car on the road all at once, and probably bankrupt them.
      I would imagine the health insurance and life insurance policies would have something like that too.. wouldn't they?

  • pegaxs on 01/05/2022 - 10:26
    +51

    Pretty sure if your car gets (fropanity) up due to a nuclear blast, the least of your worries is going to be… "I wonder how long it will take AAMI to process my claim??"

    • Neoika on 01/05/2022 - 10:35
      +5

      Most people do not stay far from their vehicle. My question is can you survive after it?

      • Ultimate Gattai on 02/05/2022 - 16:53
        +1

        This is my thought, if the car gets hit with a nuke, you probably will too.

        • zzznomadzzz on 02/05/2022 - 22:29
          +22

          Yes but you'd want your cousin from thousands miles away to have the option of claiming your nuked Camry on your behalf. Your cousin will then put the money claimed into a bitcoin account that you pre-setup and it'll grow in mad value over the course of 200 years. By then, cloning tech is perfect, the bitcoin fund will automatically pay for your cloning and you'll be respawned, and time travel back to 2022 to comment on this post.

    • serpserpserp on 05/05/2022 - 10:15
      +1

      Says you, that is the first number I am calling after waiting 200+ years in my bunker for the fallout to clear up so I can get my 5G reception.

  • Euphemistic on 01/05/2022 - 10:41
    +23

    A hangover clause from the Cold War that suddenly seems a little more relevant. Except that in the event of nuclear war we are going to be driving black XB falcons and wearing strange bondage related fashions.

    • aleph1 on 01/05/2022 - 12:11

      That's interesting about it being a hangover form the Cold War, never thought of that.

      • RockyRaccoon on 01/05/2022 - 13:45
        +4

        It aint a hangover, and its more than likely a reinsurance condition as well. (insurers cover their bets with these reinsurance companies)

        Bomb drops - cars fried, so is all infastructure, doubt you would even be able to call Aami.

        You wouldnt even be able to fuel (Ice/EV) any replacement car either

        Other thoughts.

        Who would be alive to assess the car. and if they were, they wouldnt even want to go within 100km of where it sits.

        And if a bomb drops here, there is more than likely bombs being dropped in a lot of other places. Not just Australia.

        Having lived through a simple earthquake and lived a house that survived, other infastructure took 2 weeks to be restored.

        Or those in Lismore where they were just flooded, not fried

        • Carmen Sandiego on 03/05/2022 - 08:06

          As far as I understand it, it's a little bit of column A, and a little bit of column B.

          Reinsurance terms come into it, I agree, but those only came about because of actual events and therefore, you can consider it a hangover from WWI, WWII, and the Cold War.

    • barcer on 02/05/2022 - 09:00
      +1

      I wonder if the XB Falcon might survive war better? Minimal electronics, wouldn't be disabled by EMP?

    • Ultimate Gattai on 02/05/2022 - 16:54
      +1

      Should I get my mad max outfit ready?

      It's a strange clause to still include, but understandable, especially in the times we live in now.

      • try2bhelpful on 02/05/2022 - 17:12
        +5

        What is worrying is that you have a mad max outfit ready to go :)

        • Ultimate Gattai on 02/05/2022 - 17:14
          +2

          I was prepared, I've prepared outfits for the whole family just in case, I've also studied the blu-rays extensively :).

      • OneJay on 03/05/2022 - 01:19
        +8

        You don’t need a nuclear war as an excuse to start wearing arseless chaps…

  • boomramada on 01/05/2022 - 11:49
    -1

    Isn't it better to live in a apartment/bunker then car during a missile strike ?

    • Euphemistic on 01/05/2022 - 15:21
      +3

      Not if you’re ‘insert action hero here’. In a car you can out run the bombs.

      • boomramada on 04/05/2022 - 11:31
        +1

        Sure, try that in Sydney M5 ;)

        • Euphemistic on 04/05/2022 - 15:28

          Haven’t you seen Tom Cruise driving?

      • dufflover on 04/05/2022 - 23:46

        I thought inside a fridge was the place to be :P

  • Xyzzy on 01/05/2022 - 12:36
    +1

    Why do they bother to delineate on the fission/fusion point?

    Hydrogen bombs start with the same fission reaction that powers atomic bombs. And then the fusion kicks in. So if your car is wiped out by an hydrogen bomb, you're not covered.

    • aleph1 on 01/05/2022 - 13:14

      Yes, I was wondering if they'd use that as a technicality, catch all… why not just specify "nuclear device" though.

      • aileron on 01/05/2022 - 14:09
        +7

        All devices are “nuclear” devices if you think about it. Just most of them have nothing to do with being fissile

      • prisonmike on 01/05/2022 - 16:57
        +3

        Future transportation could use small fission reactor (like mars rovers). I wonder how well this clause will stand in the insurance marketplace then.

  • Heaps for Cheaps on 01/05/2022 - 12:49
    +51

    Pro tip: If your car is evaporated in a nuclear strike, just claim it was stolen.

    • JTTheMan on 03/05/2022 - 11:47
      +3

      This comment made my day today!!!
      You win the internet!!!

      • Heaps for Cheaps on 03/05/2022 - 12:13
        +4

        Thanks, I hope you have a great day, week, month, year :)

  • CrowReally on 01/05/2022 - 13:54
    +15

    It's like that episode of Dinosaurs where Earl has meteor insurance and when the meteor hits his house the insurance dinosaur says "Ah, now when it entered the Earth's atmosphere, it went from being a meteor to a meteorite, which you are not covered for.."

    After which baby Sinclair says "Not the mama!" and hits him with a frying pan

    Ha ha, I'll bet he wishes he had frying pan insurance!

    • serpserpserp on 05/05/2022 - 10:17
      +1

      Easily one of the best comments on OZB ever

  • PR0r on 01/05/2022 - 14:05
    +1

    house insurance will be the least of your worries in such an event

  • prisonmike on 01/05/2022 - 14:18
    +12

    You will be long dead before you are able to get through to AAMI customer care to lodge the claim

    • pjetson on 02/05/2022 - 09:15
      +7

      A lot of companies/government departments are like that already.

    • JTTheMan on 03/05/2022 - 11:49
      +2

      Even if you were still alive imagine the hold time…"lucky you're with AAMI" on repeat for hours!

  • try2bhelpful on 01/05/2022 - 14:46
    +8

    Honestly, I live as close as possible to the CBD in Melbourne. When the bomb drops I’m fried in the first few seconds. No way I want to have to live with the “preppers”.

    • EightImmortals on 01/05/2022 - 15:05

      Wont they get evaporated too?

      • try2bhelpful on 01/05/2022 - 15:56
        +6

        Not taking the risk. I want to be a shadow on the wall long before they get much say in how society is run.

  • EightImmortals on 01/05/2022 - 15:04
    +3

    "Given that Russia's arsenal seems to consist largely of Fusion (Hydrogen) bombs, do you think I'll be OK?"

    Phew!

    I'd be worried if they didn't cover fission bombs as well!

  • USER DC on 01/05/2022 - 15:47

    man the real question that moment will be is the insurane company's employee's even going to be alive at that time when the explosion happened ? If no employee then who the heck is going to process your claim ? no one, even if they process your claim, how will bank system work ? without manual checks and authorizations etc ? or insurance is gonna pay you by bitcoin or something then ?

    Are they even gonna rock up to work given the situation like doomsday etc, if that was me, I'd be trying to collect lead from anywhere and, trying to grow food from non contaminated soil and water in bunkers etc,
    and hoard on non contaminated stuff to eat/drink, and on fuel too.

    • pjetson on 02/05/2022 - 09:17

      is gonna pay you by bitcoin

      Bitcoin won't even exist without electricity or computers.

      • Kangal on 03/05/2022 - 14:09

        Back to hand-jobs in the back alley then?

  • ozbargainsam on 01/05/2022 - 19:40

    Okay so we're covered by anti-matter bombs, or Dr. Manhattan-caused events.

    (Coincidentally, I was just reading the PDS not long ago and noticed the same thing)

  • Drj55 on 02/05/2022 - 08:24
    +2

    Don't most insurers also exclude any damage as part of a "war"? That exclusion above would also exclude you for nuclear reactor meltdown (if we had one in Oz).

    • Carmen Sandiego on 03/05/2022 - 08:03

      It depends on the policy and the Insurer but yes, most policies have a war exclusion

  • lew380 on 02/05/2022 - 10:49
    -1

    The problem would be if they did payout, who would collect the check?!?

  • saltypete on 02/05/2022 - 13:29

    War aside, it gives an out if Lucas Heights has a woopsie, or some types of medical waste affect you. Or radon from naturally occurring minerals.
    Or if you are shot with a projectile made from depleted uranium.
    Or most likely of all - collateral damage from a Putin Pollonium Poison Performance.
    Somethings gumnna get you eventually, no point stressing…😎

  • Noblejoker on 02/05/2022 - 14:24
    +1

    Nearly every policy for every risk has some variation of this War/Nuclear exclusion - I am in the industry
    As others have pointed out your car is no big deal - however if Vlad bombs your house you would lose your major asset
    Maybe that's why Mad max is a drifter …

    • Carmen Sandiego on 03/05/2022 - 07:58

      I also work in the industry and I love finding these little weird add on's - makes sense on a Business Pack/ISR, less on a motor.

    • Kangal on 03/05/2022 - 14:12

      Maybe that's why Mad max is a drifter …

      Isn't it because the old Falcon's are RWD and don't have Stability Control?

      • serpserpserp on 05/05/2022 - 10:19
        +1

        The only reason he drives a falcon

  • LFO on 02/05/2022 - 21:21

    Given that Russia's arsenal seems to consist largely of

    LOL, don't all nuclear armed countries have them?
    All of them.

    By the way polices exclude a lot of stuff.
    Reading my (very boring) Suncorp Insurance doco I learn that I am insured for tsunamis but NOT for raising oceans.
    Water from a tsunami is different than water from a catastrophic tide …

    Nuclear exclusions are nothing new baby. And there will be nothing and no one left to put a claim anyway.

    • idonotknowwhy on 03/05/2022 - 13:06

      LOL, don't all nuclear armed countries have them?

      But only Russia are threatening western countries with nukes right now.

      • LFO on 03/05/2022 - 13:19
        +1

        Nope.

        The "threatening" is to any country willing to attack Russia, not the "West" as in the Cold War narrative.

        It is call a determent.

        Like Israel.
        Like India.
        Like Pakistan.
        Like North Korea.
        Like France.
        Like China.

        Like UK detonating nuclear devices in Australia.

        Besides, chances are that those that have used nukes against humans and civilian targets will do it again.

        • raptormesh on 03/05/2022 - 14:03

          Deterrent.

          And yes, Russia has been a literal child threatening to nuke countries for the past month. They just talked about capsizing Ireland, lol.

          • LFO on 04/05/2022 - 13:28

            @raptormesh:

            Deterrent

            noun - a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.

            Determent

            Definitions of determent. a communication that makes you afraid to try something.
            Synonyms: deterrence, intimidation. type of: discouragement. the expression of opposition and disapproval.

            Russia's view: don't even mention foreign involvement

  • Shame on 02/05/2022 - 22:06
    +1
    • Nuclear fission only bomb e.g. Hiroshima ~15kt:
      Stage 1: fission only
    • Nuclear "fusion" hydrogen bomb e.g. Tsar Bomba 50MT or Teller–Ulam dial a yield 0.2kt to 100kt:
      Stage 1: fission
      Stage 2: fusion (conversion to fusion material first via neutron bombardment from previous step)
      Stage 3: fission of shell casing (conversion to fission material first via neutron bombardment from previous step)
    • Neutron bomb or EMP weapon:
      Stage 1: fission
      Stage 2: fusion (conversion to fusion material first via neutron bombardment from previous step)
      Stage 3: None- release of massive amounts of neutrons for neutron bombs or x-rays in the case of EMP weapons

    Most of the energy for "fusion" bombs comes from stage 3 which is fission so maybe AAMI just know their stuff? In the neutron bomb/EMP case there won't be much property destruction so you most likely won't be able to make a claim

    • nigel deborah on 03/05/2022 - 09:46

      Is that true? I know it's the case for the extremely large bombs (such as Tsar Bomba), but I thought most modern weapons intended to be delivered by ICBM did not include a third fission stage.

      Hard to know when all the designs are so classified, but no third stage fission fuel listed here for the American W88.

      • Shame on 03/05/2022 - 10:06

        Think we're both right…
        "Most bombs do not apparently have tertiary "stages"—that is, third compression stage(s), which are additional fusion stages compressed by a previous fusion stage. (The fissioning of the last blanket of uranium, which provides about half the yield in large bombs, does not count as a "stage" in this terminology.)

        • nigel deborah on 03/05/2022 - 10:48

          I read that, but think it's referring to a 3-stage fission-fusion-fusion bomb (sounds horrible), which is something different.

          Might be that all bombs have a vessel made of fissile material, but in smaller ones it's not a significant part of the yield/design? Possibly just included because they might as well, rather than using an inert material. Not sure… I only that know from an efficiency point of view, fissile material produces a lot less yield for the weight so my assumption was that they would use as little as is required to initiate the fusion reaction, especially in something as weight sensitive as an ICBM.

          Spent longer than I should have trying to figure it out, but even most the cold war era designs are still totally classified. I could only find generic/unclear designs. Either way, I think insurance is going to be the lease of our concerns in that case, haha.

  • doryappleseed on 02/05/2022 - 22:29

    Most of the yield from fusion weapons is actually fast-fission of the uranium casing of the weapons themselves rather than the fusion reactions themselves. The fusion reactions release and accelerate neutrons which split the uranium and plutonium shells, cores or casing causing way more destructive power and radioactivity.

  • gromit on 02/05/2022 - 23:14

    All acts of war declared or otherwise are excluded, so the only extra you are excluded from here is accidental exposure to a nuke.

  • hasher22 on 03/05/2022 - 00:41
    +2

    I used to work for for a short time in Mobile insurance. There are interesting exclusions and inclusions

    For example:
    - Fire is not covered but melting or lava damage is
    - Space debris is covered (a meteor hits your phone) but falling airplane parts are not.

  • Ctn on 03/05/2022 - 00:45

    I'd be more concerned about life insurance, assuming humanity survives.

  • drfuzzy on 03/05/2022 - 01:30
    +3

    I can offer you nuclear holocaust insurance.

  • pn09 on 03/05/2022 - 08:10

    Wouldn't the force majeure clauses mean that events like war or related events would not be covered?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join