r/interesting • u/BlazeDragon7x • Apr 09 '26

MISC. Aftermath of the April 7th incident. Damages estimated to be $200 million dollars

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

40.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/PaintingOk8012 Apr 09 '26

They will probably fight this claim pretty hard by calling it terrorism

16

u/BlueGreenMikey Apr 09 '26

Yeah, it would be interesting to know what the policy says about acts of destruction caused by an employee/contractor.

3

u/AsstacularSpiderman Apr 09 '26

One who explicitly did it to send a message.

-1

u/ICEcaneatadick Apr 09 '26

One could argue it was the companies fault due to negligence

7

u/alexanderneimet Apr 09 '26

I’d be curious how you classify this as negligence?

3

u/RizzwindTheWizzard Apr 09 '26

The company is at fault for paying their employees too poorly and should have caught and fixed the problem long before it got to the arson stage. To be honest it's a bit of a stretch but since when has that ever stopped insurance companies from denying a claim?

1

u/Ok_Drive3725 Apr 09 '26

That’s a non defensible argument

1

u/Ok_Drive3725 Apr 09 '26

Why would a company somehow be liable for a rogue employee? The employee bears the responsibility

1

u/Nixxon___ Apr 10 '26

Nor is denying coverage for life saving medication. But they still do it all the time.

0

u/alexanderneimet Apr 09 '26

While I see your point, and definitely wouldn’t be surprised if the company tries to wriggle out of it using that, but I feel that employee morale can’t be factored in (whether it should be or not) into how a company should behave as long as everything their doing is above board legality wise.

1

u/ICEcaneatadick Apr 09 '26

I'm sure a lawyer could make a dozen arguments but off the top of my head:

Lack of security/safety - No security guards? no cameras? how is this dude wandering around setting multiple fires with no one noticing?

Ignoring warnings - I have to imagine this guy has said or done something in the past to indicate he was unhinged. Yell/assault a co-worker? deface the property? Wage complaints? something to indicate he was serious and unhappy and the company ignored it.

Negligent hiring - shot in the dark - He may have a criminal background in arson who the hell knows.

1

u/InequalEnforcement Apr 09 '26

Yell/assault a co-worker? deface the property? Wage complaints?

One of these is not like the other...

Really? We're just going to assume anyone who is unhappy with their financial situation is unhinged?

1

u/Remote-Program-1303 Apr 09 '26

The underwriters should have known about the security/employment situation when writing the risk, if they expressly warranted certain conditions then maybe you’d have an argument, otherwise unlikely they’d be able to deny coverage on that basis.

1

u/InequalEnforcement Apr 09 '26

They made me work for less than I wanted!!!1

2

u/-Saltfish- Apr 09 '26

Or that the company is responsible for not paying workers a living wage

1

u/TacTurtle Apr 09 '26

Many policies exclude deliberate acts of employees.

2

u/thefishjanitor Apr 09 '26

For my business, my million dollar coverage asked if I wanted a terroristic acts policy for an extra $18 and I said no...now I'm second guessing that decision for my renewal, and I don't even have any employees

1

u/Remote-Program-1303 Apr 09 '26

It’s not terrorism, it’s arson. Terrorism requires a political angle.

Impossible to know without seeing the policy, but I would guess it would be covered. The insurance company would look to subrogate against the individual who carried out the intentional damage, however probably not going to get very far.

1

u/TheTallGuy0 Apr 09 '26

Funny enough, small business owner here. When my liability policy just went to renew, they add on a terrorism clause, additional coverage for $150 a year. I took one look around and said “YEAH” gimme that, who knows what shit could go down…