My understanding is that there are only 2 or 3 carriers that will write this risk. Usually they will carry excess liabilty and usually it stops at 7 million. The trucking company will be short, and will then higher an attorney to go against the contractor, steel co., and etc. The bottom-line it will be in court.
This is just another example of global warming that the evil bush regime is trying to hide the truth. I must point out if you beleive this fictious stroy about the truck causing the bridge to melt that why didn\’t the driver buy the appropriate carbon credits to burn that much fossil fuel? Vote for me in 2009!
Hey, Einstein – I\’m pretty sure you meant \”hire\” an attorney. Unless, of course, you were addressing the ultimate cost of the claim as a result of the attorney.
Doesn\’t matter who the insurance carrier is – they just bought a bridge.
ok….i\’m mildly new to the insurance world….so i know to some extent, common sense does not apply. (mild joke)
wouldn\’t the truck driver\’s insurance company only be liable for the damage caused when the driver hit the bridge and NOT the fact that the steel melted?
kind of like how insurance companies cover hurricane damage but not wind damage from the hurricane (still trying to wrap my mind around that one).
The article did not give enough information about the accident to know who will be liable. It may be the truck driver, or may be a lucky California automobile operator with the California minimums, which I think are 15/25/10.
Talk about restitution.
The minimun limits in CA are 15/30/5. However, a CalTrans requirement for a petroleum hauler is much higher. When the policy limits are exhausted, I\’m sure the release will be complete & taxpayers can foot the additional amounts! Lucky us!
The news is already pointing at-fault fingers in every direction. The attorneys will have a field day looking for some deep pockets. They are even blaming the licensing department for issueing the driver a license 10 months earlier allowing him to carry hazardous material. This driver has a a not so clean past, however, has been reformed for tha 9 years, so lookout it\’s fingers gone wild
At this point it really does not matter ( proximate cause) as they will claim contibutary negligence on all parties. The tab for the first four days of this accident is $8.5 million, so lookout fingers as they will be pointing to everyone.
This was a solo loss. Allegedly the trucker was speeding and he may have lost control. The driver could have fallen asleep for all we know. At least he made it out alive and no other people were injured or killed. One good thing from this loss is that it has forced a lot of people to use mass transit instead of their vehicles.
Look at the bigger picture, the driver, or even the truck owner\’s pockets are limited. Now they will be looking for the money, for example, was the curve properly banked, should the steel have melted, or what safety mechanism\’s failed and caused the explosion. The estimated costs are approaching 20 million dollars.
thats why it collapsed. Never before has flame melted steel, or maybe once, but anyway never before. Remember the World Trade Center, and the New Orleans levee?
All blowed up.
My understanding is that there are only 2 or 3 carriers that will write this risk. Usually they will carry excess liabilty and usually it stops at 7 million. The trucking company will be short, and will then higher an attorney to go against the contractor, steel co., and etc. The bottom-line it will be in court.
Pay close attention to this article. I guess that this is only the SECOND time in history that fire has melted steel…
How can one go through life and remain so ignorant of things that the cavemen knew a few thousand years ago???
This is just another example of global warming that the evil bush regime is trying to hide the truth. I must point out if you beleive this fictious stroy about the truck causing the bridge to melt that why didn\’t the driver buy the appropriate carbon credits to burn that much fossil fuel? Vote for me in 2009!
the insurer was on the driver?
I would like to know the insurer of the truck that burned the highway.
Hey, Einstein – I\’m pretty sure you meant \”hire\” an attorney. Unless, of course, you were addressing the ultimate cost of the claim as a result of the attorney.
Doesn\’t matter who the insurance carrier is – they just bought a bridge.
ok….i\’m mildly new to the insurance world….so i know to some extent, common sense does not apply. (mild joke)
wouldn\’t the truck driver\’s insurance company only be liable for the damage caused when the driver hit the bridge and NOT the fact that the steel melted?
kind of like how insurance companies cover hurricane damage but not wind damage from the hurricane (still trying to wrap my mind around that one).
The article did not give enough information about the accident to know who will be liable. It may be the truck driver, or may be a lucky California automobile operator with the California minimums, which I think are 15/25/10.
Talk about restitution.
Proximate cause – had he not hit the bridge, the fire would not have started, etc., etc. – uninterrupted chain of events.
The minimun limits in CA are 15/30/5. However, a CalTrans requirement for a petroleum hauler is much higher. When the policy limits are exhausted, I\’m sure the release will be complete & taxpayers can foot the additional amounts! Lucky us!
The news is already pointing at-fault fingers in every direction. The attorneys will have a field day looking for some deep pockets. They are even blaming the licensing department for issueing the driver a license 10 months earlier allowing him to carry hazardous material. This driver has a a not so clean past, however, has been reformed for tha 9 years, so lookout it\’s fingers gone wild
At this point it really does not matter ( proximate cause) as they will claim contibutary negligence on all parties. The tab for the first four days of this accident is $8.5 million, so lookout fingers as they will be pointing to everyone.
is what was the proximate cause. Was it
some dude who rearended the tanker?
This was a solo loss. Allegedly the trucker was speeding and he may have lost control. The driver could have fallen asleep for all we know. At least he made it out alive and no other people were injured or killed. One good thing from this loss is that it has forced a lot of people to use mass transit instead of their vehicles.
Look at the bigger picture, the driver, or even the truck owner\’s pockets are limited. Now they will be looking for the money, for example, was the curve properly banked, should the steel have melted, or what safety mechanism\’s failed and caused the explosion. The estimated costs are approaching 20 million dollars.
thats why it collapsed. Never before has flame melted steel, or maybe once, but anyway never before. Remember the World Trade Center, and the New Orleans levee?
All blowed up.