West Fertilzer explosion - 1 million dollar policy

[wmw999 2,114]

Depends on the state. Texas is (ahem) "business-friendlly," which means there are plenty of construction companies that pay cash and have no insurance, etc. Our regulatory environment in many things is minimal.

And there's always someone willing to hire the lowest bidder without looking at how they got to be the lowest.

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)

[Rick 67]

wmw999

Depends on the state. Texas is (ahem) "business-friendlly," which means there are plenty of construction companies that pay cash and have no insurance, etc. Our regulatory environment in many things is minimal.

And there's always someone willing to hire the lowest bidder without looking at how they got to be the lowest.

Wendy P.

There are unlicensed contractors that operate outside of the law. But that does not mean the laws are not in place.

Florida has been cracking down on unlicensed contractors ever since the fly by night roofing companies ripped off a lot of homeowners after the last few hurricanes.

Any licensed contractor will not be able to renew their license,pull permits or even work on a construction site without meeting the insurance requirements.

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

[airdvr 197]

Quote

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?

Umm...like it's never happened before

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate_disasters

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[fastphil 0]

When a license is a requirement of the responsible person at a business in Texas (Master Plumber) there is also a liability insurance requirement to hold the license. There are many trade licenses that allow you to work in that field for one of these licensed (and insured) businesses. These are requirements to pull permits and enter into contracts. Even in Texas unlicensed business exist but on a very small fly by night basis.

If you’re looking for regulation you need to look at OSHA.

[Rick 67]

We are on the same page Phil I just took exception to this "If a business doesn't want to be insured, so be it" statement by DPREguy.


We both know this is not the case.

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

[funjumper101 15]

dpreguy

....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.

In other words, let corporations and businesses operate however they like, without any meddlesome government regulations as to how they conduct business. Another way of saying what you said is to privatize profits, and make taxpayers bear the costs when catastrophes happen.

An excellent example of Right Wing Conservatard philosophy.
Businesses are awesome, regulations suck, and citizens rights not to have their houses blown up by irresponsible business operators do not exist. It is the homeowners fault for living so close to the minimally regulated business.

Maybe you could move somewhere like the unregulated paradise that is Somalia. They certainly don't have any regulations as to how a business operates. Pesky rules like maintaining adequate insurance will never be an issue there.

[dpreguy 14]

You are correct about your requirements in your state, and some municipalities require bonding and insurance, etc too. In that you are correct, but only because some state legislature has decided to require it for you contractors, taking that choice from you.

For sure, some businesses and state licensees are required to have insurance, bonding, etc.. But not many. You just happen to live in a state that is more regulation-oriented towards contractors.

This thread started as a rant about why Texas should require all businesses to carry "appropriate" insurance, and calling the Governor a moron and other such silly statements. My remarks, in general, are not directed to you, but a balance to that mentality. I presume you would prefer that those costly decisions to have insurance and and bonding decisions left to you, and not be dictated by some legislature or agency.

[funjumper101 15]

The governor of Texas IS a moron, elected by the morons who voted for him.

[Rick 67]

dpreguy

You are correct about your requirements in your state, and some municipalities require bonding and insurance, etc too. In that you are correct, but only because some state legislature has decided to require it for you contractors, taking that choice from you.

For sure, some businesses and state licensees are required to have insurance, bonding, etc.. But not many. You just happen to live in a state that is more regulation-oriented towards contractors.

This thread started as a rant about why Texas should require all businesses to carry "appropriate" insurance, and calling the Governor a moron and other such silly statements. My remarks, in general, are not directed to you, but a balance to that mentality. I presume you would prefer that those costly decisions to have insurance and and bonding decisions left to you, and not be dictated by some legislature or agency.

You would assume incorrectly. i like the protection the bonds and insurance give me personally as the license holder. i also like the fact that not just anybody can pull a permit or bid on the jobs I can because of the insurance i carry.

Why you would assume otherwise is beyond me.

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

[fastphil 0]

I'm with you Rick, it's hard to argue against someones best guesses.

Texas is home to some of the worlds biggest chemical companies and refiners and many more operate plants here so why anyone would guess there is a lack of regulation is beyond comprhension. Much of the safety regulations and policies are federally mandated, so like I mentioned before, where is OSHA.

[airdvr 197]

Quote

For sure, some businesses and state licensees are required to have insurance, bonding, etc.. But not many. You just happen to live in a state that is more regulation-oriented towards contractors.

You're going to have to provide some sort of proof that 'not many' states require contractors to carry insurance.

The idea that more regulations somehow would have prevented this is a song sung loudly by the liberals here. In my best Hillary voice..."what difference does it make?"

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[dpreguy 14]

Rick, I am not disagreeing with your comfort in having insurance, nor the preference you rightly deserve, by having these insurances-worker's comp etc.. That you carry such insurance protections, or that your customer demands them is perfectly logical. I am just saying that it is your choice to operate that way. The guy(company) that built my house had no insurance, used independent contractors, etc.. My choice to do business with him. Maybe large commercial contractors have to carry such coverage, but your average contractor does not. License? Yes, they are in general required to be licensed, but having a license doesn't mean there is an insurance requirement. Are they making an unintelligent choice to be uninsured? Probably, but it is theirs. Building contracting is, depending on the state, probably a highly regulated area, and I am no expert on this, but having known three contractors for houses and small business remodels, in two states, they insure (or not insure) based on the job, and sometimes to get the job. If the lender needs a 90 day insurance because of a 90 day construction loan, then they get that. If it is not to their liking, they don't carry it and lose jobs. Seems like a choice they are entitled to make.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

The idea that more regulations somehow would have prevented this is a song sung loudly by the liberals here.

Well, I must have missed that part of the thread, I thought the discussion was about insurance.

I'm sure you're right though. It's pure folly to think that regulation has made any industry any safer than if companies were answerable to nothing but the bottom line.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?