West Fertilzer explosion - 1 million dollar policy

[skinnay 0]

Quote

Quote

If you don't live in Texas why are you even commenting?

In THIS THREAD you recently started, there's one post after another where you bitch about New York's approach to gun laws. Which begs the question: If you don't live in New York, why are you even commenting?

Stupid question, eh?

I see post after post where conservatives who live elsewhere bash New York,, Massachusetts, San Francisco, etc., etc. And you know what? that's OK. So is his commenting about Texas.

Oh snap!

[billvon 2,380]

>maybe they shouldn't have allowed the town to expand around the plant over the decades.

Who is "they?"

[dpreguy 14]

There isn't any federal liability. It is a Texas problem. The only federal money spent so far is our whiny ass president flying there to mumble some pithy words about the explosion just to get get face time at taxpayer's expense. He should have stayed home. It isn't his problem. It isn't a fed problem. It is Texas'. If you ain't from Texas, you aren't affected. If Texas taxpayers pay, then that's for them to decide. The only way a federal expenditure would be involved is if some do-gooder agency is directed to "help" in the name of all of the sympathy created, despite the fact that it is a state problem, not a federal one.

This was presented as a rant about some need for a government official or government office to decide how much insurance a business should carry, and a criticism about a businesses that don't carry any insurance or "enough" as determined by some internet poster. I guess it is a cry for "nanny state" requirements about insurance coverage decisions for Texas businesses. Silly. It's up to the Texas legislature; not a bunch of regulation-loving hand wringers who post their non wisdom on an internet site.

So, should rig manufaturer's be "required" to carry liability insurance? Riggers? Dropzones? Plumbers? Nurses? Hot dog stand owners? House painters? If so, how much? Who would decide how much? The whole concept is meddling. It's a business decision, not a governmental one.
If a business doesn't want to be insured, so be it.

[billvon 2,380]

>If a business doesn't want to be insured, so be it.

If a business doesn't want to be insured, don't blow up small towns.

Their right to be self insured ends when they destroy people's homes - and then skip out on paying the bills.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>maybe they shouldn't have allowed the town to expand around the plant over the decades.

Who is "they?"

Very generally speaking, issues of municipal planning, municipal expansion and/or land usage are regulated by zoning laws and ordinances. The existence and/or scope of such zoning regulation, as well as the nature and diligence of the enforcement of zoning regulation, tends to vary from one state to another, and often from one locality to another even within a state. Put very simply and broadly, it is up to state and local governments, by various means, to decide how expansive their zoning regulation will or will not be.

Does this mean a stricter zoning regimen (and/or stricter enforcement thereof), and/or better municipal planning within Texas might have avoided some of the collateral damage from the West explosion? Hard to say without deeper analysis, but it probably merits looking at.

[wmw999 2,116]

No, in this case the "they" is most likely the people who "chose" to live where they did, and the people who "chose" to build businesses and schools where they did.

Victims are easy to blame -- even in skydiving, the credo is "don't be a victim."

In this case, there's plenty to go around. How to go forward is more difficult, and anyone who thinks that no federal money is going to help with this is crazy. We'll probably eat some of our Texas rainy day fund to help pay (sorry schools).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,621]

I agree

Since its only Texans getting blown up, and you assure me that it won't cost me anything, why should I care?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

This is where other insurance comes into play. Take homeowner's insurance - if someone burns your house down or blows it up, you have insurance to cover it. You report to your insurer and they indemnify.

Then your homeowner's insurance goes after whomever is responsible and gets its money back via subrogation and hope it gets paid. That's the cost of insurance. Hopefully these people have it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,380]

>Take homeowner's insurance - if someone burns your house down or blows it up, you
>have insurance to cover it.

Ah, so you're advocating that people who live near plants likely to explode should carry higher levels of insurance? How would they make that determination?

>Then your homeowner's insurance goes after whomever is responsible and gets its
>money back via subrogation and hope it gets paid.

Yep. In this case it looks like a foolish hope.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>Take homeowner's insurance - if someone burns your house down or blows it up, you
>have insurance to cover it.

Ah, so you're advocating that people who live near plants likely to explode should carry higher levels of insurance? How would they make that determination?

For the homeowner, it's not necessary to make that determination - all they need is standard homeowner's insurance that covers total loss. You have it on your house - it protects you against total loss from, e.g., fire, and it also protects you in case your neighbor's home explodes due to accidental causes, such as a gas explosion, and your house is damaged or destroyed by the incident, too. Now the insurance carrier might need to make that determination at the underwriting investigation level in order to set the premium to reflect the risk, but that's a different issue.

[regulator 0]

More like the insurance company finding some piddly reason in the contract so they wont have to spend any money.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]in this case the "they" is most likely the people who "chose" to live where qw
I find it difficult to hold it against the residents at all. I think the well-known video points out exactly my reasons for this - the people around it had no idea the explosive capabilities of the place. None. Think you're a safe distance? Nope. You aren't even close.

Operators know the risk.
Regulators know the risk.
Fire departments know the risk.
OSHA knows the risk.
Departments of transportation know the risk.

But residents? I seriously doubt anybody knew or could comprehend how big that boom could be.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Way to go Texas!!!!
West Fertilizer company had a 1 million dollar liability policy. Damage from the blast is estimated at 100 million dollars. Taxpayers will be picking up the tab.

There's no company in the world that carries enough insurance to cover the total cost of an extreme disaster in any field - at least in my experience. (massive engineering, construction & infrastructure projects)

Do you really think that design and construction firms carry $1bn worth of insurance in case a hospital they designed falls over? Of course not - the fees required by the insurance agencies for that type of situation would make the system unusable.
You carry insurance for likely costs of a mistake... if the explosion is the result of an exceptional mistake, then the insurance liability was never designed to cover that.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have had more. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been more closely regulated, but implying that they should have carried enough insurance to cover the $100m is overly simplistic.

C'mon now, $1M is less coverage than I have for flying model airplanes out in the middle of nowhere.

If I remember correctly, my homeowner's policy includes $1M in liability coverage.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

>Take homeowner's insurance - if someone burns your house down or blows it up, you
>have insurance to cover it.

Ah, so you're advocating that people who live near plants likely to explode should carry higher levels of insurance? How would they make that determination?

I'm not sure why they'd carry more insurance. Less insurance would likely be justified due to repressed property value as a result of locating next to a dangerous facility. Premiums, on the other hand...yeah, the insurance company should probably ask for more of those.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

>maybe they shouldn't have allowed the town to expand around the plant over the decades.

Who is "they?"

the municipality, or even the town's insurance company.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

No, in this case the "they" is most likely the people who "chose" to live where they did, and the people who "chose" to build businesses and schools where they did.

Victims are easy to blame -- even in skydiving, the credo is "don't be a victim."

In this case, there's plenty to go around. How to go forward is more difficult, and anyone who thinks that no federal money is going to help with this is crazy. We'll probably eat some of our Texas rainy day fund to help pay (sorry schools).

Wendy P.

Did I say 'they' was the people who built? I didn't. There's clearly a place for municipal planning in here just as andy said. Like when town's expand out to and around airports that host dropzones, and people start bouncing on the side of the mall, like happened in Simcoe Ontario a while back.

Although in this case as well, one of the businesses seemed to be a nursing home - if that is a state-run facility that would be a double whammy.

I don't know Texas all that well, but I thought it was generally pretty flat. Shouldn't have been that hard to decide a fertilizer plant may be a hazardous neighbor, expecially when it had already blown up once. Might have been an idea to expand toward the other side of town.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[wmw999 2,116]

I was putting words into his mouth -- the original "they" poster has subsequently clarified. I was wrong about it, was basing it on a comment about building next to airports and complaining.

Because I agree entirely with you about whether individuals should have to know.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[dpreguy 14]

Time for me to dial back. I think I had too much coffee. A lot of good stuff and good thoughts posted.

[popsjumper 2]

I'm still trying to resolve why some people saying insurance should be required but then turning a blind eye with respect to businesses in our own backyard.

Janus?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Rick 67]

dpreguy

A business can decide how much insurance to carry, and even decide not to carry any insurance.

Not really to maintain any type of State license or even to register a business most places there is a minimum amount of liability insurance required. Not even thinking about workers comp. performance bonds, bid bonds etc.

Insurance is a very big expense for most businesses.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[mr2mk1g 10]

$1 mil is a pretty shocking figure. We have $7.74 mil third party liability insurance just for hucking ourselves out of planes in the UK and the cost of tort litigation over here is a fraction of in the US. Hell we get more than $3 mil cover on motor policies.

[jakee 1,254]

popsjumper

I'm still trying to resolve why some people saying insurance should be required but then turning a blind eye with respect to businesses in our own backyard.

Because it's different?

URWS may not have had liability insurance for people using their products but does that mean their premises or their workforce weren't insured?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

popsjumper

I'm still trying to resolve why some people saying insurance should be required but then turning a blind eye with respect to businesses in our own backyard.

Janus?

Because insurance - like anything else - is just something everybody ELSE should have.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dpreguy 14]

....Maintain a state license or register a business = minimum insurance requirement.....

Not even close to being true.
State licensed: lawyers do not have to purchase malpractice insurance, nor do doctors nor do nurses, realtors beauticians, veterinarians......all licensed by the state. The list goes on. It is a decision made by those licensees. Many do, but many do not. And, you can register business corporations with the state all day and not have insurance for those businesses. And even in mandatory car insurance states there is usually a "self-insured" opt out. I doubt that a company making fertilizer is required to have a license to do so, and if so, that there is an insurance requirement. It is a business decision. And that is the way it should be. It may not be wise to forego insurance, but it isn't illegal - nor should it be. Dropzones and riggers and aff instructors and tandem instructors and pilots and rig manufacturers are not required to be insured. If they want to run the risk, that's their choice. Insurance isn't even available for some of these persons. If it was available, then how much coverage? Who will decide that? Some do-gooder agency?

So, after the fact, people are wringing their hands and seeing some kind of injustice about those companies that are uninsured, or (in their opinion) under insured. The choices in any state are just that. Have a nanny state mentality based upon the idea that some agency or legislature has superior wisdom about how business should be run, operated, insured etc, and multiply 'red tape' laws and regulations that are so binding, intricate, onerous, and meddling that business can't operate without a staff of regulation experts or just go out of business - or leave businesses alone, as apparently the city and the state there in Texas chose to do, and continue to do so. If one does not like that, then stay out of Texas and go to New York where the state wants to ban large soft drinks or San Francisco where fast foods are prohibited from handing out toys......Anyone can choose to go those states and cities to live. It is a choice. Yes I am pretty sure there are state regs and fed regs about handling ammonia, and other chemicals, but that is a long distance from the wrong concepted mentality of requiring insurance for businesses. Some people like to be regulated and told what to do in their daily lives and business lives, and to impose their preference to be controlled upon others. You have to decide which suits you.

[Rick 67]

wow not even close huh...

I can't send my guys to a job site without liability insurance.Every one of my employees must be covered by workers comp insurance. Every time I renew my state license I need to show the state my liability and workers comp policies. Every sub I send to a job site must have liability and workers comp. Every place I go to pull a permit requires I add them to my liability insurance as a "certificate holder".

having followed these requirements for the past 20 years I think maybe I am kinda close to the truth??