'If Al Qaeda had poisoned the water of 300k people ...'

And?


I can 't wait for the punchline.....

The plant is run by Freedom Industries...


The context of the story for those not in the know:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/432068/january-13-2014/water-crisis-in-west-virginia?xrs=share_copy

West Virginia chemical spill: end of water ban in sight, but questions linger (+video)
West Virginia officials see 'a light at the end of the tunnel' in the five-day water crisis that barred 300,000 residents from using tap water for anything but flushing following a chemical spill.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/0113/West-Virginia-chemical-spill-end-of-water-ban-in-sight-but-questions-linger-video

What was it Randi Rhodes always said?

Something like...

Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

Seems to be working here....

"Say, Boss, am I reading this report correctly? It says here we are going to build a chemical storage area upstream from the Water Treatment Plant and put less than 100 feet from the river's edge?"

Joe(From the book "Questions Never Asked")Nation

So what...?

Do you really think this company is going to walk away unscathed from this debacle?

First of all no West Virginia politician is about to give them cover, and secondly even if they did, the litigation that is already being readied against them will be ruinous.

I suppose you think BP got away with it when a few million barrels of oil ran into the Gulf.

all these guys are covered by EIL insurance for just this kind of emergency. Litigation will involve(among other technical points) the WHY THE HELL WAS A WATER INTAKE LOCATED so close to chemical outfall and why wasn't this octanol compound given a proper MCL since I found that the LD 50 is a mere 20 grams(Even way less for kids because the LD50 was computed for a 150 lb adult). The stuff has a sweet, almost minty smell so its probably been passed over ( I don't know if the outfall was up or down stream because in W Va, one can never be sure since these ole boys don't seem to have a firm grip on the concepts of stream flow and gravity)

The insurance cases will probably last for a decade or more and then will be appealed until the casualty losses are diffused in subsequent profits.



.

So insurance is a bad thing in this case?

If they didn't have insurance the litigation might last as long as the company could drag it out, but the insurances companies' interests (there is most likely a tower of insurance in which numerous companies participate) and the polluting company's interests are not identical.

One would have to know the specific terms of the policies involved to be certain, but, generally speaking, an insurer doesn't view paying more than it's policy limits in defense costs to be anything like a victory.

If the liability of the company is fairly clear and the plaintiffs aren't too greedy, settlements will be reached.

I certainly would not want to have been one of the people living in this area but unless they drank tainted water which has led to a demonstrable physical injury, their damages are going to be relatively modest.

Of course the litigation that ensues is going to include claimed damages based on the fear of cancer and the like and lawsuits will be possible years from now when residents come down with cancer or have children with birth defects (irrespective of the actual causes).

Assuming that this incident didn't involve intent or gross negligence ( it could easily be the case that it does), why would anyone want to see the company destroyed?

Whatever ensues from this incident, we can be pretty sure that if the company surrvives, it will not repeat it.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, would definately attempt to repeat their act. Al Qaeda would, without any question, have intended to cause as much harm as possible, and the chances are pretty good that it would take many years and American lives to bring the terrorists to justice.

It really is absurd to compare this company with Al Qaeda and this incident with a terrorist act of poisoning a civilian population's water supply. I appreciate that you are not, necessarily, making such comparisons, but the post to which you responded was directed at the OP, and not you.

We will probably never know what the OP's point was, as this seems to be one of those drop and run threads, but I can't imagine any point that makes sense.

Corporations are as bad as terrorists? Does any serious person really believe that?

This company is not going to go scott free from this, even with the financial protection provided by insurance.

The beat goes on.

Now it appears that The State of West Virginia hadn't inspected those tanks since .......1991.

But wait, there's more. If Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist or terrorist group, foreign or domestic, wants a nice sitting duck target, they couldn't do much better than to attack any one of the thousands of chemical production and/or storage facilities scattered all across this nation.

What is the state of increased security at these facilities, especially in light of the attacks of 9-11-2001?

You and I still have to remove our shoes and stand still for an X-ray at every airport.
You and I, today, can, without much effort, breech the fences or railroad gates of any number of the chemical plants in the USA. Why is that?

Because, since 9-11, both the chemical industry and the insurance companies have fought tooth and nail against any great security regulations.

They are betting that not enough of us will die to matter to their bottom lines.

Joe(good luck to us all)Nation

PS: Twenty hours ago the City of Cincinnati stopped using it's water intakes on the Ohio River.
I'm betting that this stuff will be traceable in the water all the way to the Mississippi River delta and the Gulf of Mexico.

My point clearly was that insurance will dull the "Scathing" that the company suffers, not that insurance is a bad thing.
The state imsurance regs will define the coverage, triggers, who knew what and when, and what is a shared liability from the standpoint of the city's(or water authority's) responsibility on locating intakes. v the company's responsibility on locating an outfall

Im sure there are "excess coverage policies" on something like this.

Having spent lots of my career in insurance claims on mining environmental damages, Im never one to make any kind of a prediction like that.
It could land anywhere in damages claims. Fortunately the Time of coverage an length of the polluting event would be defined by the rivers Q and not something as vague as "ground water flow"


A smart defense theory would include making sealed offers with non disclosure requirements on the several potential "down the road" litigants or even third parties

As I said, the water authority has a similar responsibility to explain why it located its water intake, or allowed an outfall within a danger zone that could promote such a pollution event.

The OP of this thread has obviously no love for corporations. I, while being a bit more understanding,I still feel (and Ive never been proven wrong after 10 years of such haranguing) that industries will NEVER do whats right without strong environmental laws in effect.
Look at China, that was us less than 80 years ago. (We used to promote wste disposal WITHIN estuaris and rivers as a way to "Reclaim waste lands". We pumped out all sorts of toxins into outfalls until such rivers as the Cayuhoga and the Ohio and Hudson were toxic "Soups".
Insurance coverage only works in a framework of good environmental law and enforcement.

I sit on several panels for environmental reg development based upon REAL science , not merely feel goodiness. The gas industry in Pa, for example, needs to know whether fracking DOES cause harm, (Of course Id say that we should have taken a route like NY and study FIRST). The gas isn't going anywhere its just becoming more valuable.

"This stuff is an Octanol. Octanols are used as fragrance enhancers and in some cases actually as flvorings. This one has an LD 50 clearly determined. WHY it doesn't have a maximum contaminant level (MCL) established is beyond my apolitical mind.

If AL Qaeida wants to hit us in our resources infrastructure, a discharge on a river is really kind of stupid. A river hs a clearly defined limit of effect and water supplies that use rivers can easily be shut down and purged. Poisoning a reservoir is infinitely more able to be a real act of TERROR(think of all the Catskill reservoirs that are flat ass OPEN to anyone with a canoe full of thallium or polonium)

I live about 25 miles North of the Conowingo Dam which lies above several major towns (Baltimore, the Eastern Shore etc). Conowingo, despite a huge effort by Homeland to do threat planning, TO THIS DAY, has only a small gaurd shack manned by some fat old dude , who is there more to direct the bird watchers than to be a security guy.

Conowingo is but one of hundreds of really critical spots that are "easily attackable"
SOthe OP, despite the tone implied, has actually. unknown to him or her, defined the fact that our security is woefully lacking for environmental infrastructure.

The problem in Homeland **** is that weve got too many "lifers" on that staff that have no ability to THINK like a terrorist.

If someone wants the company to be fully scathed, insurance is an impediment.

And what to you think the effect of there being excess policies has on the incentive of the carrier(s) to settle?

The state insurance regs will have far less to do with the issues you've referenced than will the terms of the contract and court interpretations. If insurance companies could rely on state regs, there would be a hell of a lot less uncertainty. One never knows how a judge will rule.

Perhaps you won't make such a prediction, but I'm very comfortable doing do. What are the damages resulting from not being able to drink tap water or bathe?

The state sets "trigger" issues . SOme states say that only the "initial contamination " is in play while others say that the policy starts coverage at the date of first contamination and continues to some point that is usually set by some judge (that's where I often come in to determine if its even scientifically possible to determine the approximate date of first contamination. In effect, the states set the policy issues that can be covered, and, as I said, states are all over the map based on the majority party when the insurance regs went into effect. These things get reviewed and changed but they require certain levels of Legislative cojones.

Looks like all this is moot anyway because the company apparently didn't even have any EIL coverage and is now seeking bankruptcy protection. SO, it appears that the ultimate costs will, once again, be born by the good citizens of West Virginia.
Before this goes away, I hope the state legislature holds hearings questioning the water authority's selection of a place to sit its intake , and, whose Intake/outfall was there first?

Theres a whole bunch of lawyers in the west that make great livings taking on such "NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGE CLAIMS" Ive only gotten involved in one case in all my years working where a water supply was lost because the Kcyanide solution that was used to "leach" the raw ore had leaked through the underlying protective liners and got into the ground. The damage was based on "how much is the replacement value of a water resource that has to be abandoned?"

Courts determine which theory of coverage trigger will apply.

Who are the plaintiffs in these Natural Resource suits to which you refer?

An insurance claim is almost always filed by the industry that caused the damage. They aren't seeking a decision that they DIDNT cause the contamination, they are already pst that. They are seeking coverage under their policies for which they've been pying premiums on for years.
Many times a really big issue is that industries would go and "Shop" coverages based on their CFO's wishes (Most industries had to learn their roles in the 1990's when it comes to environmental issues) so there may be insurance companies fighting each other so as NOT to be in the pool of potential payees.


Nat Resource Damages are usually assessed by the affected class or the state, or some defined group like a watershed association .

Then its not surprising that the lawyers who bring Natural Resource suits are making a lot of money. That Class Action lawyers make huge sums of money has very little to do with the actual damages of the individual members of the Class, which is why while the attorneys often make hundreds of thousands (even millions) in fees, the members of the Class usually get a ridiculously low amount of money or no money at all; just a coupon .

I don't know what sort of environmental claims you've been involved with but most EIL policies provide coverage for third party actions. They are necessary to certain industries because the Comprehensive General Liability policy, almost universally, includes some form of pollution exclusion (usually an absolute one). While the insured may be willing to admit they are responsible for the pollution (and whatever clean-up costs are required by the government), I doubt to many are willing to admit they are responsible for the personal injury claims of every resident within 100 miles of the site.

It's impossible to say all insurance policies contain this or that wording because (particularly with very large insureds) they are subject to all sorts of customization.

In any case, there is a market for EIL which most of the largest insurers play within.

If this company wasn't carrying EIL or let it lapse, then they are unlikely to absorb their losses in continued profit overtime as you predicted in your original post.

yes im aware. I didn't get into it because its usually a loooong boring discussion among non-participants. You hve familiarity with the busieness?

In the earlier days, (pre 1995) Insurers were writing policies like mad an then these huge cases were coming in that the pollution exclusion and environmentl responsibilities conditions began kicking in and it often took a PhD health physicist to decode the "gotchas".
I usually represented the POLLUTOR who was only trying to get some cash to make the cleanup as painless as possible on his bottom line.

(Several Western states did not even allow the companies to expense cleanups.)

I was involved in several cases with huge classes of third parties. These often got ugly as the claimants had originally been granted class action an now the whole case involved cleanup costs plus potential health and safety payouts to the class members. A billion bucks wasn't out of the ballpark, although these were argued down more often.

Im outta that arena now. It was very lucrative because it involved lots of billable time for my staffers and equipment etc. BUT it was very stressful and the clients were often mean spirited till we won.

AGGHHHH MEmories.