3 ms·
I'm curious about the economics of that decision. Was it mentioned specifically or as an "act of god"? It seems to me (obviously a layman) that the cost of bad
by jackweirdy 8y ago
I'm curious about the economics of that decision. Was it mentioned specifically or as an "act of god"?
It seems to me (obviously a layman) that the cost of bad PR that would come out of that would outweigh the cost of paying out in the incredibly unlikely circumstance it happened?
Of course, the cost of bad PR is also pretty immaterial since it's so unlikely to happen so I can't imagine it was given much thought.
- ergothus 8y agoIt was quite explicit - one of 6 explicit omissions, IIRC (it was a ~decade ago) in addition to the more general "Act of God" category. I don't recall all of the other explicit ones, but I believe a nuclear reactor accident was another of them. I was reading to look for flooding, which WAS covered. FWIW, this was renter's insurance and not homeowners. > the cost of bad PR that would come out of that would outweigh the cost of paying out I think you overestimate the impact of bad PR, but if the appropriate foreign govt is paying, they could likely dodge any problem. Also, they can always choose TO pay if the PR is bad enough.