In insurance there are two linked ideas "the fortuitous" and " the volitional". Insurance only pays out if a loss is fortuitous. An innocent policy holder whose home is torched by insurgents may regard the loss as fortuitous (in that they had no expectation that the house would be burned to the ground). However, the loss is not fortuitous from the standpoint of the perpetrator who expected for the house to be burned to the ground when they set fire to it.

In pursuit of unnamed anarchists for "widespread criminal damage", the Metropolitan Police are establishing the case for Insurance Loss Adjusters to refuse to pay out any insurance. This case should be part of the wider protest.

For the banks to argue that they should have insurance paid out they must prove that the damage was fortuitous. If the damage was fortuitous then it was not criminal damage but an "accident".

The businesses affected would need to prove that their actions were entirely innocent and not the cause of the demonstrations. Did Sir Philip Green ask the Metropolitan Police to protect his premises? If the answer is yes then it is obvious that he expected volitional damages to occur. Otherwise he would be wasting police time. Similarly, did Santander do something to cause any expectation of damage? Then their actions were not entirely innocent.

For the Metropolitan Police to argue that there was widespread criminal damage is to invalidate any claim that "fortuitous" damages occured. They are stating, clearly, that the damage was no accident. Thus it is an uninsured loss.

Why is this important? Because, anarchists of the black bloc are in the minority. This is neither a good nor a bad thing. The result of their anonymous - but real - actions is to allow corporate insurance claims. Were these insurance claims to be allowed then premiums for all other insured people to rise. This may not be of concern to the political aims of anarchists. But it is of concern to everybody with contents insurance. Which is a genuine lever for change.

The argument needs to be made that the "criminal damage" was due to the inherent vice of the businesses that were damaged. If there is an inherent vice in banking that causes civil disorder then Banking is not insurable for property damage. Loss caused by inherent vice cannot be considered fortuitous (British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co v. Gaunt [1921] 2 AC 41 at 57), (Global Process Systems Inc v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad [2009] EWHC 637 (Comm)).

Did the Black Block intend to do criminal damage? Some would say, emphatically yes. Even if this is the Daily Mail, those indications preceded the events. So, it would not be proper to describe any criminal damage as fortuitous. Did the Black Block target specific businesses? Again, the answer seems to be yes. Those businesses targetted were of the same character. Does this mean that those businesses have an inherent vice. Referring to the Black Block themselves they claim that they were attacking those businesses because those businesses directly created a situation in which public spending cuts are being imposes. The historic evidence - from the South American Debt Crisis for example - is that Banks have repeatedly cause this to happen. Public Spending Cuts are a vice of Banking.

The Banks argue that the natural behaviour of self interest is what drives their business. The consequence of this natural behaviour is property damage to insured property in London. If the Bankers are serious about claiming self interest is natural behaviour then they must accept that there is an inherent vice in banking that causes losses against property. The Banks must either accept that they can claim against their insurance and the Black Block are right or the can not claim against their insurance but their economic arguments are wrong.

Do these arguments have any point?

The simple answer is yes. These arguments broaden out the impact of the Banking Crisis and show their links to the Spending Cuts. Spending Cuts are not the solution to the problem: they are the problem. In an intellectualised sense the insurance of business buildings against the public being disordely crystalises the con trick carried out by the banks.

But do these arguments have any practical application?

The simple answer is maybe. The banks should not be allowed to claim against insurance because the bought it all down upon themselves. The public disorder is a direct consequence of their banking activities. In a simple, annoy the hell out of them, way the insurers should be informed that claims for property damage are unsupportable because they were not fortuitous but volitional consequences of the inherent vices of those businesses. Unless those businesses can clearly demonstrate that they remained, at all times - both at the detailed level and at the bahavioural level - within a clear and ethical practice of business that did not harm the economy, then they should not be insured for the consequences of that.


Is this all Theory? Is it not the point at which to stop talking and start acting?

This is theory. But it is theory with a practical application. This is based upon applying the “common sense of a business or seafaring man”(Noten v Harding [1990] Lloyd’s Rep 283 per Bingham LJ at pp.286-287). Would a business regard invalidating an insurance policy as "common sense"? These are questions that should be asked by shareholders (and anybody who becomes a shareholder can ask such questions) as well as depositors (who can rightly ask about the safety and security of their deposits). Unless the Black Block actions are broadened out to encourage ordinarily, politically, passive people to respond their efforts are trivialised.

Yes, the media reports of "rampaging anarchists" are right wing spin. But they are right wing spin that can be used to undermine the insurance claims of banks. Banks knew from 2007 that their actions could and almost certainly would lead to civil responses - disorder even. The reality for the last half decade has been that the Banking system has failed and people know that the gig is up. If people wish to be insured (and lots of people do regardless of the correct analysis given by anarchists) then they need to reduce their risks. Preventing Insurers from paying out to Banks will significantly reduce those risks.

What action can arise from this? Quite simply, people should report the potential insurance fraud. These were not fortuitous losses but reflect the consequences of the actions of those businesses involved. In a handy website ( http://www.insurancefraudbureau.org/) The Insurance industry gathers possible insurance frauds for investigation. Should enough people make such reports (even using the handy free telephone number 0800 328 2550) then there is an obligation to investigate. Given widespread reporting of the insurance frauds there should be a public expectation that something is done by the insurers. Failure to do so would be, in itself, conspiracy to defraud.

Is this all bollocks?

The simple answer to that is: yes, but try it and see. Yes, there are a lot of legal, commercial and jargon. However, the result is that the Banking system must defend itself on multiple fronts. The intention is to capitalise on the actions of the Black Bloc (whomsoever they are) in order to ensure that Businesses are good, law abiding citizens who do not make insurance claims for the consequences of their own actions.

Then, if the insurance industry refuses to investigate the claims - there consequence would be to ask the regulator's opinion. It all keeps the pressure up. Casting doubt on banks insurance claims ups the pressure and ensures that their actions are given the widest possible scrutiny. The more scrutiny the less chance they get away with the massive program of public cuts for private profit.