11 ms·

I had a friend who dabbled in rare collectables and he told me you can almost always find a broker willing to insure, quite literally, anything.

FireBeyond 4y ago
Lloyds of London are quite open and proud of being willing to insure anything - they've insured singer's voices, model's legs, all manner of things.
- Slartie 4y ago
  Are they insuring densely populated countries against the consequences of disastrous nuclear reactor accidents?
  - michaelt 4y ago
    I suspect even a company that claims to 'insure anything' would balk at things needing a $200 billion payout.
    - Sebb767 4y ago
      Well, there's always the strategy of 'take the payouts, go insolvent in case the event really happens'. But, on the other hand, such a high possible payout would probably come with insane premiums that might make it viable (for the insurance, not the country).
    - yardstick 4y ago
      Depends on the premium they would charge.
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
    Are you thinking of Belgium, Korea, Taiwan, or Japan?
  - woutifier 4y ago
    For nuclear reactor incidents there are reinsurance pools. A collective of insurance companies. For example the nuclear reactor in Borssele, The Netherlands, is insured backed by 26 of such collectives (one national, and 25 foreign collectives) together they consist of over 300 individual insurance companies. This particular (small) reactor is insured for liability up to 1.2 billion euro.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      The problem is, the followup costs for a nuclear reactor disaster can easily reach multiple trillions of euros - and no plant is adequately insured. In Germany, they did the maths [1] in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster and found out that decent insurance would cost 72 billion euros a year in premiums - a move that would raise electricity prices from 20 ct/kWh to 4 euros/kWh. We have been ignoring that massive risk in favor of "cheap" electricity for decades, and every time something happened, in the end the taxpayers had to cover the bill. Nuclear simply is financially unviable once externalities are properly accounted for. Add to that cost and time overruns in projects, the still unsolved questions of where to dump the waste, of nuclear weapon fuel proliferation... and just forget about fission-based nuclear projects, please. [1] https://www.manager-magazin.de/finanzen/versicherungen/a-761954.html https://www.manager-magazin.de/finanzen/versicherungen/a-761...
      - Chris2048 4y ago
        Given Chernobyl cost about around 235 billion USD to cleanup - What constitutes "decent insurance"? How much are they expecting to pay out?
        mschuster91 4y ago
        It's not just the direct cleanup costs - the number goes up extremely hard if you also attempt to account for externalized costs that are rarely grouped together: - loss of life and the economic productivity of people who died early (not just the liquidators, but also everyone who got radiation damage!) - loss of sellability of goods - to this day, Bavarian shroom collectors and hunters have to check fungi or wild animals for radiation, and in particularly bad years up to 70% of wild pigs have to be discarded due to irradiation [1]. That's an economic loss for the hunters and for all subsequent economic activities (butchers, restaurants). - healthcare cost associated with dealing with the fallout - cancers are the most expensive illnesses known to mankind - loss of quality of life in those who were displaced by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, additionally also the cost of relocating and the loss of opportunities, social networks etc. caused by the relocating - loss of economic potential that could have been realized in the area around Chernobyl, had it not been contaminated [1] https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article230648425/35-Jahre-nach-Tschernobyl-Ungeniessbares-Wildfleisch-in-Bayern.html https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article230648425/35-Jahre-n...
- fmdragon 4y ago
  They were known in the 90's for insuring pro wrestlers bodies if they were injured to the point that they could no longer perform. It was pretty common to hear about a wrestler retiring with a "Lloyds settlement".
donthellbanme 4y ago
Yes you can. And I it's great for the wealthy. Forcing insurance on poor people is not right. The poor have a tough enough time just keeping their head above homelessness. I have been required to pay for automotive insurance in California for approximately 20 years. (In CA mandatory insurance was required, but not mandatory forever. There is a weird legal difference. I white knuckled my college years while driving. I got lucky except onetime. A wealthy women slammed into me, and the minute she, or actually her lawyer husband, found out I didn't have insurance, I was putty in their hands. I paid $1000 for an 1982 Volvo bumper. It was the last of my student loan, but they had me. A call to DMV and I wouldn't be able to commute to my school.) Every year if I want to drive my old truck I needed to come up with $600.00 plus. Even with a perfect record since 15.5 years of age. I only can afford the minimum. I never made much money even as college graduate. I believe it's 15-30-5. (this means if slam into you and you are a vegetable; you will get $15,000 for injuries, and $5,000 for your Tesla. Great payday? If you have money you can go after my assets.). My point is it's not enough if we are being honest. The insurance industry loves these minimum mandates because they make billions off the poor, and middleclass. It's no wonder the insurance industry is always the number #1 Lobby group on every political fund. It's a racket, and I believe the bigger boys are colluding on rates, but can't prove it. "Buy the per mile insurance dude--you low income loser!" (1. Work out the low income insurance on a yearly basis, and it's not copasetic. Plus my old Toyota does not have a computer other than a rudimentary computer that was suspose to control the main plunger in the naturally aspirated carb that never really worked. Meaning there's no computer to plug a mileage indication in. So there's no per mile insurance I can get.) My point is mandated insurance is kind of a racket like this two year mandated Smog check, especially on vechicles that that we only use a few times per year, or under 1000 miles/per year. Rant Over.
- justinator 4y ago
  Car insurance seems like a good thing, I wonder why it's not subsidized for the very poor.
  - argonaut 4y ago
    In California, at least, this exists: https://www.mylowcostauto.com/ https://www.mylowcostauto.com/
eru 4y ago
If you are willing to pay my inflated premiums, I am happy to insure anything, too.
NoboruWataya 4y ago
It's a bit of a mantra within the insurance industry that there is no bad risk, only a bad price.

FireBeyond 4y ago

Lloyds of London are quite open and proud of being willing to insure anything - they've insured singer's voices, model's legs, all manner of things.

Slartie 4y ago
Are they insuring densely populated countries against the consequences of disastrous nuclear reactor accidents?
- michaelt 4y ago
  I suspect even a company that claims to 'insure anything' would balk at things needing a $200 billion payout.
  - Sebb767 4y ago
    Well, there's always the strategy of 'take the payouts, go insolvent in case the event really happens'. But, on the other hand, such a high possible payout would probably come with insane premiums that might make it viable (for the insurance, not the country).
  - yardstick 4y ago
    Depends on the premium they would charge.
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  Are you thinking of Belgium, Korea, Taiwan, or Japan?
- woutifier 4y ago
  For nuclear reactor incidents there are reinsurance pools. A collective of insurance companies. For example the nuclear reactor in Borssele, The Netherlands, is insured backed by 26 of such collectives (one national, and 25 foreign collectives) together they consist of over 300 individual insurance companies. This particular (small) reactor is insured for liability up to 1.2 billion euro.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    The problem is, the followup costs for a nuclear reactor disaster can easily reach multiple trillions of euros - and no plant is adequately insured. In Germany, they did the maths [1] in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster and found out that decent insurance would cost 72 billion euros a year in premiums - a move that would raise electricity prices from 20 ct/kWh to 4 euros/kWh. We have been ignoring that massive risk in favor of "cheap" electricity for decades, and every time something happened, in the end the taxpayers had to cover the bill. Nuclear simply is financially unviable once externalities are properly accounted for. Add to that cost and time overruns in projects, the still unsolved questions of where to dump the waste, of nuclear weapon fuel proliferation... and just forget about fission-based nuclear projects, please. [1] https://www.manager-magazin.de/finanzen/versicherungen/a-761954.html https://www.manager-magazin.de/finanzen/versicherungen/a-761...
    - Chris2048 4y ago
      Given Chernobyl cost about around 235 billion USD to cleanup - What constitutes "decent insurance"? How much are they expecting to pay out?
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        It's not just the direct cleanup costs - the number goes up extremely hard if you also attempt to account for externalized costs that are rarely grouped together: - loss of life and the economic productivity of people who died early (not just the liquidators, but also everyone who got radiation damage!) - loss of sellability of goods - to this day, Bavarian shroom collectors and hunters have to check fungi or wild animals for radiation, and in particularly bad years up to 70% of wild pigs have to be discarded due to irradiation [1]. That's an economic loss for the hunters and for all subsequent economic activities (butchers, restaurants). - healthcare cost associated with dealing with the fallout - cancers are the most expensive illnesses known to mankind - loss of quality of life in those who were displaced by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, additionally also the cost of relocating and the loss of opportunities, social networks etc. caused by the relocating - loss of economic potential that could have been realized in the area around Chernobyl, had it not been contaminated [1] https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article230648425/35-Jahre-nach-Tschernobyl-Ungeniessbares-Wildfleisch-in-Bayern.html https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article230648425/35-Jahre-n...
fmdragon 4y ago
They were known in the 90's for insuring pro wrestlers bodies if they were injured to the point that they could no longer perform. It was pretty common to hear about a wrestler retiring with a "Lloyds settlement".

donthellbanme 4y ago

Yes you can. And I it's great for the wealthy. Forcing insurance on poor people is not right. The poor have a tough enough time just keeping their head above homelessness. I have been required to pay for automotive insurance in California for approximately 20 years. (In CA mandatory insurance was required, but not mandatory forever. There is a weird legal difference. I white knuckled my college years while driving. I got lucky except onetime. A wealthy women slammed into me, and the minute she, or actually her lawyer husband, found out I didn't have insurance, I was putty in their hands. I paid $1000 for an 1982 Volvo bumper. It was the last of my student loan, but they had me. A call to DMV and I wouldn't be able to commute to my school.) Every year if I want to drive my old truck I needed to come up with $600.00 plus. Even with a perfect record since 15.5 years of age. I only can afford the minimum. I never made much money even as college graduate. I believe it's 15-30-5. (this means if slam into you and you are a vegetable; you will get $15,000 for injuries, and $5,000 for your Tesla. Great payday? If you have money you can go after my assets.). My point is it's not enough if we are being honest. The insurance industry loves these minimum mandates because they make billions off the poor, and middleclass. It's no wonder the insurance industry is always the number #1 Lobby group on every political fund. It's a racket, and I believe the bigger boys are colluding on rates, but can't prove it. "Buy the per mile insurance dude--you low income loser!" (1. Work out the low income insurance on a yearly basis, and it's not copasetic. Plus my old Toyota does not have a computer other than a rudimentary computer that was suspose to control the main plunger in the naturally aspirated carb that never really worked. Meaning there's no computer to plug a mileage indication in. So there's no per mile insurance I can get.) My point is mandated insurance is kind of a racket like this two year mandated Smog check, especially on vechicles that that we only use a few times per year, or under 1000 miles/per year. Rant Over.

justinator 4y ago
Car insurance seems like a good thing, I wonder why it's not subsidized for the very poor.
- argonaut 4y ago
  In California, at least, this exists: https://www.mylowcostauto.com/ https://www.mylowcostauto.com/

eru 4y ago

If you are willing to pay my inflated premiums, I am happy to insure anything, too.

NoboruWataya 4y ago

It's a bit of a mantra within the insurance industry that there is no bad risk, only a bad price.