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

331–340 of 374 posts

Re: Mercury Spill

#331

Post by jandrese »

tadfisher wrote: post #184
pdabbadabba wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the intuition that the insurers are scumbags interesting (not that I don't share it, on some level). After all, in this case they also didn't cause the problem, don't own the house, and never agreed to insure the homeowner against that kind of risk. What am I missing? Of course, its important to distinguish this situation from cases where the insurer did agree to cover it, but refuses to pay anyway.

The true villain in this story is the home inspector who was incompetent enough to miss a decommissioned upfeed hot-water heating system, a sure indicator of the presence of elemental mercury in the home.

Home inspectors are by and large useless. They exist because the laws say they must exist, but they don't have a strong regulatory body making sure that they're competent. Once the house is sold they're gone.

For the most part they're just yet another guy who takes a cut whenever a house is sold.

Re: Mercury Spill

#332

Post by jandrese »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #146
jandrese wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tough choice between being a scumbag and paying two years salary[1] out of pocket for something that was not your fault and that the insurance apparently doesn't cover because they are scumbags too. [1] The median wage in the US per person is $26,695.

I find the intuition that the insurers are scumbags interesting (not that I don't share it, on some level). After all, in this case they also didn't cause the problem, don't own the house, and never agreed to insure the homeowner against that kind of risk. What am I missing? Of course, its important to distinguish this situation from cases where the insurer did agree to cover it, but refuses to pay anyway.

Isn't a situation like this exactly the reason why one would have insurance in the first place? What other options does a homeowner have? Is there some second insurance policy they can buy to cover the numerous holes in the first?

Re: Mercury Spill

#333

Post by Lawtonfogle »

nathanb wrote: post #73
rdtsc wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yap. An insurance inspector if they are nice enough, will let you know between the lines how you need to phrase your claim. Forgot what the trick word was when we had a leak at our house, but it was similar phrasing -- "So let me remind you, if it is , we'll cover it. If it is we won't. So... which one is it". -- "Oh ok, definetely then ...". /smile

It's kind of scary that something of this magnitude would depend on the kindness of the claims inspector. The one I dealt with was professional yet friendly and helpful (and climbed my wooden stepladder while wearing heels without a second thought). If she had been having a bad day, or just generally of grumpy disposition, or whatever, things could easily have gone the other way.

It allows for a great deal of discrimination, both explicit where the inspector deliberately chooses to not help and implicit where the inspector isn't even aware they are discriminating.

Re: Mercury Spill

#334

Post by digler999 »

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 support their refusal to pay in this case. Its impossible for a policy to cover events that happened in the past. A policy covers an individual against specific events that may occur for a fixed duration based on how much they pay. The house was already damaged, likely decades ago. The house was inspected by a licensed home inspector before sale. Due diligence was attempted. Insurance isn't a product that allows you to buy damaged goods and have them repaired. It allows you to preserve the utility and value of existing goods.

Re: Mercury Spill

#335

Post by kornish »

nemo44x wrote: post #145
kornish wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to play devils' advocate, that's less than $1k _in a savings account_. Many people store cash straight in their checking accounts or have much more than $1k in stocks and bonds which aren't too hard at all to liquidate, and the figure you're quoting didn't account for that.

You're parsing wrong here. It means people don't have that much liquid. As in saved.

Sure, that's what I said. :)

Re: Mercury Spill

#336

Post by tadfisher »

mcherm wrote: post #292
zaroth wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are these "mortgage lenders" you speak of? It's all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and they set the underwriting requirements which include property insurance. [1] - https://www.fanniemae.com/content/guide/selling/b7/3/02.html

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac manage only about 40% of the mortgage market in the United States. Now, that's big enough to have a significant effect on the entire rest of the market but they do not control the entire mortgage market.

Parent is probably referring to the secondary mortgage market (mortgage-backed securities), of which F&F now control more like 90%.

Re: Mercury Spill

#337

Post by Lawtonfogle »

existencebox wrote: post #126
gozo wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I tried, but they started playing hardball, saying that if I didn't take the car from them (which they wouldn't allow me to do without signing a contract saying that I accept it "as is" and promise not to follow up) they would start accruing charges for storing it. I had just moved into the area for a job starting simultaneously, so unfortunately I didn't have the free time or resources to maneuver against them (The…

Would reporting them for theft work? Tell them they have X time to give you your car back or you will report them for theft.

Re: Mercury Spill

#338

Post by cytzol »

alextgordon wrote: post #318
beeboop wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you licked your finger afterwards, nothing.

Even if you lick your finger, if it is elemental mercury then probably nothing either. But don't try it!

Just curious: what would it need to be for it to do something? Not that I'm planning to...

Re: Mercury Spill

#339

Post by Gibbon1 »

rtkwe wrote: post #97
FrankenPC wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 probabl…

I'm not sure, but maybe this is something title insurance is supposed to cover?

Re: Mercury Spill

#340

Post by jsprogrammer »

Filligree wrote: post #291
jessaustin wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're driving cross-country you're on an interstate. Park under an overpass.

And get hit from behind? No, thanks.

Interstates generally have a decent width shoulder to pull over on.

Also, it's not safe to drive during a massive hailstorm. You should be pulled over anyway.

Post reply on HN