Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
1–10 of 440 posts
Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
#2An interesting analysis of the outcomes of free market forces at work.
Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
#3Video: I was wrong (and so was everyone)
Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
#4I'll need to update my local yours for when people visit me in London.
Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
#5I didn't realize this was even an assertion that people made at all.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. People at the time must have known that fires in cities were extremely dangerous because they could spread over a great area. It's logical that insurers would want to work together to prevent all fires, purely out of self-interest to protect their insured properties, and then sue the pants off negligent and/or uninsured property owners after each near-miss.
The paper in TFA says as much, but it's weird to me that people would uncritically accept the proposed narrative in the first place.
Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
#6And here we are in modern times where we do, indeed, let buildings burn.
> No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn
> Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee.
Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
#7And here we are in modern times where we do, indeed, let buildings burn. > No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn > Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39516346
This story still makes the rounds, and the result is still the same. The family chose to live in unincorporated land. They turned down fire protection when the county offered it to them. They turned down fire protection when their insurer offered it to them. The fire department did what was required to save lives. Insurance can take care of the rest...oh, that's right.
Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
#8And here we are in modern times where we do, indeed, let buildings burn. > No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn > Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39516346
[flagged]
Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
#9And here we are in modern times where we do, indeed, let buildings burn. > No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn > Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39516346
No solution to the free-rider problem ever makes everyone happy.
Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
#10I didn't realize this was even an assertion that people made at all. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. People at the time must have known that fires in cities were extremely dangerous because they could spread over a great area. It's logical that insurers would want to work together to prevent all fires, purely out of self-interest to protect their insured properties, and then sue the pants off negligent and/or u…
But then what is the incentive for anyone to get coverage if they know that any fires will be put out regardless...?
Unless the fire service is paired with insurance covering the cost of a rebuild? But I don't think the original fire services offered that.