Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mercury Spill

jefftk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 374 posts

Re: Mercury Spill

#91

Post by backlava »

chimeracoder wrote: post #75
deciplex wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if they're adjusting premiums such that they're net positive on every single account, does that mean they'll refund your money if you end the contract without ever having made a claim?

> So if they're adjusting premiums such that they're net positive on every single account, does that mean they'll refund your money if you end the contract without ever having made a claim? No, because you're paying for the peace of mind that comes with knowing that your worst-case scenario has been mitigated, on the off-chance it happens . Even if there is no disaster, you still benefited from not having to worry ab…

Insurance rates usually go up after a claim even if it's obvious that the claim doesn't reflect a higher future risk, though.

Re: Mercury Spill

#92

Post by ubernostrum »

Empact wrote: post #20
ccvannorman wrote: post #14

It may have cost you $50,000 but you now have +50 karma on HN and rising. Some would say a bargain! ;-] In all seriousness, cool story, glad you're okay, and this makes me think "insurance" as a business needs to be re-thought entirely. How many times has it happened that insurance companies weasel out of paying? Objectively you might think THAT was their primary job.

Yep, an alternative model enabled by technology is mutual / cooperative insurance in which the policyholders not only own the company but also govern the release of funds. This way incentives are aligned - the insured want the insurance to act fairly, even with respect to others, so that it will be there for them. It would be something like gofundme but on a subscription basis, with up or down decision-making by subs…

I'm pretty happy with my (mutual) auto coverage.

In fact, right now I'm getting around on a rental car courtesy of my policy, while my car is being repaired; I'll be out of pocket about $250 total for around $2000 worth of damage to the car (tl;dr -- driving home a few nights back, didn't see a traffic cone that had rolled out into my lane and ran over it at 50mph, which is not good for some of the things on the underside of the car).

Re: Mercury Spill

#93

Post by FussyZeus »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #12

> Call it $50k total? Jesus fucking Christ. So I guess the lesson here for the average homeowner is "if you find a mercury spill, don't tell anyone or you'll lose your home"? Also: > They were using a Jerome meter, which can only measure down to 3000 ng/m3 when the safe indoor limit is 300 ng/m3 Huh? Why would a mercury-abatement crew use a mercury detection meter that can't actually detect hazardous levels of mercur…

Exactly what I was thinking, I'd consider myself pretty financially solid but $50k would ruin me. I'm assuming the OP was doing renovations of some kind already and had the cash on hand, or at least the majority of it.

Re: Mercury Spill

#94

Post by lutorm »

chimeracoder wrote: post #59
existencebox wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll throw my hat in the ring. Recently had a car totaled when getting it shipped cross country. Apparently because it was an "Act of god" (a hailstorm, with what looks like fist-sized-rock-hail in that every piece of glass and most trim on the car had holes in it, although I'd argue the insurance was for the idiot driver who didn't pull over or cover his load.) the insurance company refused to do squat. The car was…

> It really feels like less insurance and more government mandated protection money; Car insurance is different from other forms of insurance. The reason car insurance is mandatory is because otherwise, if you hit someone or damage their property with your car and they successfully sue you, they could very well end up with nothing (if you're broke). With insurance, that person is guaranteed to get a payout, because t…

Only liability insurance is mandatory, and that would never cover your hail-damaged car, so this seems like a specious argument. You're not required to have collision and comprehensive coverage if you don't feel it's worth it.

Re: Mercury Spill

#95

Post by mingabunga »

prodmerc wrote: post #71
steven777400 wrote: post #26

I wonder how this kind of thing plays out for people that don't have anywhere near $50k available. I'm assuming since the company worked first and then invoiced, that the options would be either (1) sell the house and use the proceeds (assuming equity exists) to pay off the cleaning, or (2) declare bankruptcy. If the company were to require pre-payment for cleaning, then it's really just down to either (1) abandon an…

(3) clean it up with a dustpan :-D Seriously, mercury is not dangerous unless inhaled or ingested. Suit up with a cheap hazmat and gloves and clean away...

Yeha, I'm a bit dumbfounded about the calling of the fire dept, the reaction and so on. I would have just figured out where it was coming from and cleaned it up myself with some gloves and a dustpan.

Re: Mercury Spill

#96

Post by odonnellryan »

nathanb wrote: post #17
paulsutter wrote: post #7

Maybe the lesson is to save. There's a huge number of very unlikely risks. Too many risks to carefully avoid them all. Something unexpected will happen. Insurance can help, but as the articls shows, not always.

Seriously. I don't know a lot of people for whom a surprise $50k bill would be "unfortunately" rather than "disastrously".

I don't think there are that many people. 50K is a lot.

Re: Mercury Spill

#97

Post by rtkwe »

FrankenPC wrote: post #69
cbr wrote: post #58

Author here: happy to answer questions.

How long have you owned the house? Toxic waste like that are grounds to sue the previous owner if not disclosed during the purchase...at least in California.

> I talked to a lawyer, who didn't think we'd be likely to succeed if we tried to get the insurance company to pay anyway. They did think whoever owned the house at the time of the spill would be liable, but it would be hard to prove that the spill happened at a certain time and they may not have the money.

Right from the article. Sounds like there have been multiple owners, no way to assign blame. Last owner probably can't be fined for something they had no knowledge of.

Re: Mercury Spill

#98

Post by gozo »

existencebox wrote: post #45
ccvannorman wrote: post #14

It may have cost you $50,000 but you now have +50 karma on HN and rising. Some would say a bargain! ;-] In all seriousness, cool story, glad you're okay, and this makes me think "insurance" as a business needs to be re-thought entirely. How many times has it happened that insurance companies weasel out of paying? Objectively you might think THAT was their primary job.

I'll throw my hat in the ring. Recently had a car totaled when getting it shipped cross country. Apparently because it was an "Act of god" (a hailstorm, with what looks like fist-sized-rock-hail in that every piece of glass and most trim on the car had holes in it, although I'd argue the insurance was for the idiot driver who didn't pull over or cover his load.) the insurance company refused to do squat. The car was…

Wouldn't you in this case claim the money from the transporter and they would hopefully be covered by their insurance?

Re: Mercury Spill

#99

Post by hyperbovine »

chimeracoder wrote: post #52
nostromo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance is such a scam. A friend of mine made two claims within about five years: once for water damage and once for a burglary. The insurance company agreed that she was covered. So they paid her and then dropped her. No big deal, right? Wrong. Once you've made a claim or two against your insurance, it can be very hard to get any new insurance company to cover you. She finally did find a new insurer, but the price…

> She finally did find a new insurer, but the price has gone way up -- negating her original claims. This isn't a scam at all. That's exactly what you'd expect from insurance. Insurance isn't there to save you money. In fact, the expected value of an insurance plan is always going to be negative on an infinite time horizon[0]. The whole point of an insurance plan is to smooth risk : instead of the small possibility o…

What? The point of insurance is to pool risk. The expected value of insurance is not automatically negative. Look up the term "actuarially fair". Yes, there is moral hazard in insurance and it is sometimes necessary to exclude bad actors to prevent markets from unraveling, but to not to the extent which has become common in many sectors. Your whole post reads like an specious apology for bad behavior in the insurance industry.

Re: Mercury Spill

#100

Post by unclebucknasty »

deciplex wrote: post #86
chimeracoder wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if they're adjusting premiums such that they're net positive on every single account, does that mean they'll refund your money if you end the contract without ever having made a claim? No, because you're paying for the peace of mind that comes with knowing that your worst-case scenario has been mitigated, on the off-chance it happens . Even if there is no disaster, you still benefited from not having to worry ab…

I understand how insurance works, but you haven't really addressed what I'm talking about, which is that insurance companies often don't seem to understand how insurance works. You can't expect to make a profit off of every account - it defeats the purpose of an insurance scheme altogether. If an insurance company raises the premiums on a person after they make a claim, or drops them from coverage, even when the natu…

You're right. The parent comment is explaining only the actuarial risk model of insurance schemes, which is not the same as raising rates on a customer for makng a claim, even when his/her risk profile is unchanged.

The purpose is clearly to discourage you from making a claim, which is what makes insurance a legal scam.

Post reply on HN