Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M • Hacker News Board

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#161

Post by nashashmi » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 1:49 PM UTC

proteal wrote: post #56

nashashmi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Base damage is covered by the first line insurer. The excess damage is covered by the backend insurer. Business is about managing loss. Nothing more. No further emotional support required.

What you are describing is true, but there is a lot of nuance to how reinsurance plays out in large insurance policy towers. If you build a stack of insurance policies that work together to create a large single policy limit, you typically won't see reinsurance directly in that tower. If "Westchester Insurance Company" is anywhere on that tower as a carrier (whether first line, known more commonly as a primary insure…

Thank you for explaining it in so much more detail than I had the patience for.

Who is the ultimate insurer without any insurance backing? I’m guessing every topic of loss has a different insurance company. Massive fire damages (electric company wild fire) is by one firm. Massive equipment destruction (crane collapse) is by another firm. But there has to be an ultimate uninsured bag holder. (I remember Warren Buffet once saying he will be allocating $10 billion for insurance, I guess in a savings account just in case anyone needs it while he is offering insurance plans on it .)

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#162

Post by nashashmi » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 1:53 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #97

proteal wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are describing is true, but there is a lot of nuance to how reinsurance plays out in large insurance policy towers. If you build a stack of insurance policies that work together to create a large single policy limit, you typically won't see reinsurance directly in that tower. If "Westchester Insurance Company" is anywhere on that tower as a carrier (whether first line, known more commonly as a primary insure…

> It truly is insurance policies all the way down. The way it has always played out in my lifetime, it is just a few levels of insurance, and then future taxpayers. See Katrina, Sandy, 2008 financial crisis, 2020 pandemic, etc.

The way you see the cost is when you go to buy anything new, the price of the item goes up because the background insurance is a little bit higher.

If the insurance is too high, businesses shut, market price goes up and economy slows down, leading the govt to print more money for stimulus which in turn devalues the previous losses, with justified inflation.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#163

Post by nashashmi » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:04 PM UTC

noisy_boy wrote: post #45

nashashmi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no fault neglect or want of care. The engine failed. The ship was out of control. It was not bad maneuvering. It was not sleeping on the wheel. It was not want of care (it was piloted by a harbor pilot).

A bit premature to declare so, don't you think? What if it comes out that corners were cut regarding engine maintenance or something along those lines?

That will have to be an argument that is made and it will be a difficult argument to make.

“Engine was not maintained well” is so deeply opinionated. The first thing they do is check standards. Was it oiled? Were the parts replaced periodically? Was the fuel type correct?

It could be a mistake. “What kind of engine?” “It needs this type of fuel.” “Oops, no, that was for the older ship. This is a different ship.” “The ship already set sail.” “Nevermind then and keep your mouth shut.”

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#164

Post by nashashmi » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:08 PM UTC

jryb wrote: post #47

nashashmi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no fault neglect or want of care. The engine failed. The ship was out of control. It was not bad maneuvering. It was not sleeping on the wheel. It was not want of care (it was piloted by a harbor pilot).

The engine failing isn't some random, unlucky event. Regular maintenance and inspection should prevent this. Whenever this happens to an airplane it's considered negligence - there's no reason why we shouldn't have the same standards for ships.

If the engine on airplane fails, it fails immediately before taking off. Destruction is kept to a minimum. Likely no one dies.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#165

Post by Majromax » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:12 PM UTC

bluelightning2k wrote: post #96

Y_Y wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an analogous situation in (e.g. sports) betting. Every now and then someone places a really long bet on something like Leicester winning the Premiership and then gets a collosal payout. Inevitably there's some naive speculation that the betting shop will be very unhappy with this. In reality theae u likely events happen relatively infrequently (often disproportionately to even their long odds) and the public…

Problem with this: an individual betting shop pays out, the sales lift is shared among the entire industry. Concentrated downside, distributed upside. I doubt the individual bookie is happy.

Proper betting shops are market makers, ideally balancing their books such that they profit by the house spread regardless of outcomes. A bookie that takes on a substantial net position is accidentally gambling with their own money.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#166

Post by alistairSH » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:30 PM UTC

c0wb0yc0d3r wrote: post #156

alistairSH wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bridge opened in March 1977. A cargo ship at that time would have maxed around 3000 TEU (pre-Panamax). Dali is close to 3x that size at just shy of 10,000 TEU. And Dali basically center-punched that bridge support. And swerved very close to the bridge. A dolphin might have mitigated a glancing blow, but I doubt it would have stopped a direct hit such as this. I'm sure the replacement bridge will have more protect…

> A dolphin might have mitigated a glancing blow Are you referring to the animal, or is this slang for some sort of nautical device?

The upper span has concrete dolphins, the lower span does not... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)#/media/Fil...

What I don't know is how much protection these would offer in a direct hit like the Dali on the Key Bridge. They definitely work for glancing blows and smaller vessels. Would the Dali just push right through/over these? Or would the impact move enough earth (below the surface) to cause the bridge major structural damage?

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#167

Post by PeterisP » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:36 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #49

sverhagen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What helps push down prices of bridges, is to not build them in US. Or at least, it always strikes me how outlandishly expensive infrastructure projects are in the US (for me coming from Europe, originally).

outlandishly expensive infrastructure projects are in the US As someone in Europe I wonder where this notion comes from. Just about every major (and several minor) infrastructure project I can remember in my lifetime, in any of the European cities I've live in, has been both late and wildly over budget

Major infrastructure projects everywhere tend to be both late and wildly over budget, but the point is that in USA the initially budgeted cost (which is optimistic and doesn't get met) is outlandishly expensive even when compared to the actual wildly over budget cost of other places; what other countries say "wildly over budget" is still cheaper than a USA project that would get done on time below budget.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#168

Post by PeterisP » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:39 PM UTC

rjsw wrote: post #66

ignoramous wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> estimates of large public works projects are always too low, and actual costs can be 5-10 times higher. The most recent example I can think of is England's High Speed 2 going from £35b to (est) £170b: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#Funding

A fair bit of the cost increase of HS2 was NIMBYs wanting it to be in tunnels after the route had been chosen, replacing a bridge should be easier to estimate.

Do you think that NIMBY factor won't apply when replacing this bridge? And are you really certain that "replacing a bridge" can't or won't turn into building some tunnels during the process, as some people are already suggesting? IMHO everything is possible.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#169

Post by helsinkiandrew » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:46 PM UTC

proteal wrote: post #23

altacc wrote: post #2

I have wondered what the insurance structure for this is and how liable the vessel's owners and insurers are for damage to public infrastructure. Marine insurance is one of the oldest types of insurance and antique in some respects, with large vessels covered by several underwriting firms. So potentially this is a massive financial hit for multiple companies if there is not a limit on liability.

As a former property insurance broker whose clients had big claims ($100Mish) and worked around people who handled the real big claims ($1B+), I can't really tell you with any specificity of how this will play out. All I know is that it will be a huge mess, and the lawyers will argue in court for several years. Ultimately, someone will have to pay to rebuild the bridge. In the event of really big claims, it almost al…

I read that Barclays estimated total insurance claims would be $2-3B ($1-1.5B for bridge and rest for wrongful death claims and loss of business), with most of that falling on the Lloyds of London market. FYI they received over $65B in premiums last year (and made a profit of $10B)

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#170

Post by nickburns » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:52 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #49

sverhagen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What helps push down prices of bridges, is to not build them in US. Or at least, it always strikes me how outlandishly expensive infrastructure projects are in the US (for me coming from Europe, originally).

outlandishly expensive infrastructure projects are in the US As someone in Europe I wonder where this notion comes from. Just about every major (and several minor) infrastructure project I can remember in my lifetime, in any of the European cities I've live in, has been both late and wildly over budget

i wonder that too (although we all know how intellectually comfortable it is to resort to tribalist thinking). human greed, inefficiency, and error is certainly not geographically restrained.