It could cost insurance companies $1.2bn for the bridge damages and millions more for the six deaths.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/cpwMp

  • Kairos
    link
    fedilink
    648 months ago

    Oh yeah because insurance companies paying what they’re contractually obliged to is “loss”

    • Tar_Alcaran
      link
      fedilink
      238 months ago

      Well yes, unplanned expenses in excess of income are “loss”, regardless of if you’re contractually obligated to do so.

      I imagine the insurance agency didn’t plan to pay for an entire bridge this fiscal year, so they’re going to have one bigass loss.

      • Kairos
        link
        fedilink
        188 months ago

        Insurance has overhead insurance for these things.

        And if they don’t they should fail.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          16
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Yeah and these reinsurances are also insurance companies, so the statement “insurances could lose up to 3bn” is still right.

          Even further: most losses are booked by reinsurance companies, cause prior insurances mostly don’t cover big sums on there own. It’s like “10 million for me and the rest for you.”

      • @ikidd
        link
        English
        58 months ago

        No, but they planned for one bridge every 50 years. So this is that year.

    • Rentlar
      link
      fedilink
      138 months ago

      Insurance thought they found an infinite money glitch to get big sums of money forever unless the bridge collapses, but it relied on the bridge not collapsing. Whoops.

    • @Lightborne
      link
      58 months ago

      What a bizarre comment. What are they supposed to call it, a “gain”?