6 ms·
As a former property insurance broker whose clients had big claims ($100Mish) and worked around people who handled the real big claims ($1B+), I can't really te
by proteal 3y ago
As a former property insurance broker whose clients had big claims ($100Mish) and worked around people who handled the real big claims ($1B+), I can't really tell you with any specificity of how this will play out. All I know is that it will be a huge mess, and the lawyers will argue in court for several years.
Ultimately, someone will have to pay to rebuild the bridge. In the event of really big claims, it almost always end up being whoever has the deepest pockets. The process of discovery will list out who all the owners are and how much their policies cover this claim (whether intentionally or not!).
As counterintuitive as this may sound, the insurance and reinsurance companies are actually pretty well equipped to handle this type of event. The underwriter(s) on the other side of policy will have to report the claim to their boss and the report will show they followed company guidelines. The boss can only shrug her shoulders and say "welp, can't be too mad because this is the business we are in." No one is particularly thrilled about paying the claim, but these situations are exactly why insurance was created. (For context, the "small" claims of $1M -> $10M hurt the most because they are the ones that throw off underwriter's models the most and cause the most unprofitability)
- cientifico 3y agoI can tell you how is going to play out. The people with less money for lawyers will be held liable. Normally the captain.
- rightbyte 3y agoThere was a pilot onboard, right? If I remember correctly they made the ship steer of course quite sharply. If the pilot dropped anchor and made the ship do that they might be in error.
- nradov 3y agoLegally speaking, the pilot is only present in an advisory capacity. The master is ultimately responsible for safe navigation. As for the anchor, you seem to misunderstand the basics of ship handling. https://youtu.be/qZbUXewlQDk?si=GBPMFyHPZGAF1v5z https://youtu.be/qZbUXewlQDk?si=GBPMFyHPZGAF1v5z
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- leereeves 3y agoHolding the captain liable would be like trying to get a blood transfusion for an elephant from a mosquito.
- Scoundreller 3y agoThey could be one of many parties considered liable. Lawyers will justify spending $20k in legal work on themselves for an extra $100ks in recoveries, even if that’s a part of $billions. Quite possible the captain has their own liability insurance. Dunno how the professionalization works at sea.
- rob74 3y agoOh, I thought you meant the taxpayers (ok, they won't be held liable, but are still the most likely to pay for it in the end)
- gtirloni 3y agoThe captain can be fired, sure. Pay anything? Extremely unlikely. The liability for accidents stops at the company, unless there was a clear intent from the captain to cause the disaster but now we're in criminal court.
- gruez 3y agoUnlikely given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability#Employers'_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability#Employers'...
- Scoundreller 3y agoThe people harmed with less money for lawyers probably won’t get anything, I can see that happening. Automakers might get a payout for the shipping delays, but people waiting longer for their new car won’t see any of it. The people’s commutes that will be X minutes longer for the next while will have to just suck it up. Same for anyone paying a few percent more for goods that have to be imported through other ports.
- AdamN 3y agoMy understanding is that the insurers like these situations - it makes it obvious how important good insurance is and sales go up. The individual impact seems large to the layperson but is within the models of the insurance and reinsurance companies over time.
- Y_Y 3y agoThere is an analogous situation in (e.g. sports) betting. Every now and then someone places a really long bet on something like Leicester winning the Premiership and then gets a collosal payout. Inevitably there's some naive speculation that the betting shop will be very unhappy with this. In reality theae u likely events happen relatively infrequently (often disproportionately to even their long odds) and the publicity from such an unlikely win more than makes up for the payout.
- randall 3y agoSo big payouts become an organic marketing expense. Clever!
- bluelightning2k 3y agoProblem with this: an individual betting shop pays out, the sales lift is shared among the entire industry. Concentrated downside, distributed upside. I doubt the individual bookie is happy.
- Majromax 3y agoProper betting shops are market makers, ideally balancing their books such that they profit by the house spread regardless of outcomes. A bookie that takes on a substantial net position is accidentally gambling with their own money.
- gtirloni 3y agoI'm not familiar with betting in general but is there even a bookie this days? Or is that a company (one of the thousands flooding social media with ads lately)? It seems, like in other industries, being large helps to weather out such rare events.
- algo_trader 3y ago[flagged]
- helsinkiandrew 3y agoI read that Barclays estimated total insurance claims would be $2-3B ($1-1.5B for bridge and rest for wrongful death claims and loss of business), with most of that falling on the Lloyds of London market. FYI they received over $65B in premiums last year (and made a profit of $10B)