RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance.

RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

graceadieu -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/5/2013 8:28:16 AM)
Jesus Christ. D and I's corporation employs only the two of us, and is in a relatively low-risk field, and we have to have $5 million in liability. (Though that was the landlord's requirement, not the state's.) How does a factory that makes a highly explosive product only have $1 million??? That's incredibly irresponsible. WTF.

DesideriScuri -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/5/2013 8:44:19 AM)
Sorry. Wrong thread for this...

DesideriScuri -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/5/2013 8:45:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Roberts (lawyer for plaintiffs) said he expects the plant's owner to ask a judge to divide the $1 million in insurance money among the plaintiffs, several of whom he represents, and then file for bankruptcy. Well, yeah. That's obvious. The huge question is, what will be the consequences of being underinsured? There will be huge political pressure to hold the owners personally liable for this, possibly criminal charges as well. There will also be huge pressures against doing so, since it would kill Texas' business-friendly image. I certainly hope there are ramifications for being underinsured.

graceadieu -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/5/2013 8:47:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Well, yeah. That's obvious. The huge question is, what will be the consequences of being underinsured? There will be huge political pressure to hold the owners personally liable for this, possibly criminal charges as well. There will also be huge pressures against doing so, since it would kill Texas' business-friendly image. Yeah, I think the issue is going to be that, because it is a corporation, the owners would not normally be personally liable for an accident, or if they got sued, or if the business failed. That's why you incorporate. I think there's only so much you can undermine that before it does scare off and cause problems for businesses. But I feel like there is/should be a responsibility that goes along with the protection of incorporating - business owners should act in good faith and do their best to make sure that their company follows the law, is insured, etc. If you run your business with such a total disregard for the law and public safety, you should be held personally responsible in a criminal court.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/5/2013 10:40:17 AM)
It's my understanding that they weren't required to carry any more insurance than what they had. But they were violating the law in terms of how much dangerous product they were storing in one location - although surely anyone inspecting those facilities would have quickly determined that laws were being violated. A broader issue is that when you are part of a business good ole boys network, you expect to be cut some slack - both by lax legislation, and lax enforcement of whatever legislation exists. In places like Texas, this is how business has operated for decades (if not longer). Everyone operates under the principle that low probability situations do not need to be legislated for, or managed properly. Otherwise how would the good ole boys network make shitloads of money (their god-given right, after all)? [&:]

erieangel -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/5/2013 9:41:17 PM)
quote: very hefty fines Yep. VERY HEFTY FINES. I wouldn't define any fines that have been given to any corporation in recent years as being hefty. When a fine is less than punitive, it almost invites a corporation to break the law and pay the penalty. But take a year of profit as the fine and force the board to explain THAT to the shareholders and we'll be seeing a huge difference in the way business is conducted. As for the laws and regs themselves...when you have enough enforcers to cover a city the size of LA and expect them to enforce the laws across the entire country, they ain't gonna get the job done. Simple as that. That's what the republican meme of "smaller government" is all about--get rid of government employees who enforce all those laws and regulations.

Powergamz1 -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/5/2013 11:37:14 PM)
Poking holes in leading questions is an actual answer. In the case of tap dancing on yet another pile of dead bodies or parts thereof, it is all the answer deserved. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 ROTFLMAO!!! No, God erased a few zeros from the policy just before he blew the place up as a sign of His displeasure that Perry wasn't President...[8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen http://www.dallasnews.com/news/west-explosion/headlines/20130503-west-fertilizer-was-insured-for-only-1-million-a-fraction-of-estimated-losses.ece 100 million in physical damage but only 1 million in insurance. How's that deregulation working for the people of West? Any proof of deregulation that led to the incident, or led to the low insurance coverage? Sarcasm noted. Lack of actually answering the question also noted.

DarkSteven -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 1:30:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: very hefty fines Yep. VERY HEFTY FINES. I wouldn't define any fines that have been given to any corporation in recent years as being hefty. When a fine is less than punitive, it almost invites a corporation to break the law and pay the penalty. But take a year of profit as the fine and force the board to explain THAT to the shareholders and we'll be seeing a huge difference in the way business is conducted. As for the laws and regs themselves...when you have enough enforcers to cover a city the size of LA and expect them to enforce the laws across the entire country, they ain't gonna get the job done. Simple as that. That's what the republican meme of "smaller government" is all about--get rid of government employees who enforce all those laws and regulations. Saying "hefty fines" is a knee-jerk reaction. The issue is, who gets fined? Bankruptcy is a wonderful thing. It permits businesses to operate and the worst that can happen is that a business fails. It's intended to protect from both bad luck and simple poor decisions. However, in this case, some of the executives' decisions are irresponsible and likely criminal. The company's assets cannot possibly cover the damage done. So bankruptcy is a feasible course of action, very likely the only course of action. When that occurs, the insurance company will pay out the million it's obligated for, and the company assets will be divvied up to pay the rest, for pennies on the dollar. Adding fines to that will not affect anything. The usual justification for going after the assets of a company's owners ("piercing the corporate veil") is when the owners are running the business to its detriment and their gain. You might be able to make a weak argument that the company's underinsured status was detrimental to the company and resulted in its bankruptcy, and that the owners somehow profited. But I think a better approach would be to hold the owners criminally liable for the violations that resulted in the explosion. I don't see fines as much as jail terms being in the offing.

DesideriScuri -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 7:23:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess It's my understanding that they weren't required to carry any more insurance than what they had. But they were violating the law in terms of how much dangerous product they were storing in one location - although surely anyone inspecting those facilities would have quickly determined that laws were being violated. A broader issue is that when you are part of a business good ole boys network, you expect to be cut some slack - both by lax legislation, and lax enforcement of whatever legislation exists. In places like Texas, this is how business has operated for decades (if not longer). Everyone operates under the principle that low probability situations do not need to be legislated for, or managed properly. Otherwise how would the good ole boys network make shitloads of money (their god-given right, after all)? [&:] What regulations were enforced differently in this case?

DesideriScuri -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 7:32:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: very hefty fines Yep. VERY HEFTY FINES. I wouldn't define any fines that have been given to any corporation in recent years as being hefty. When a fine is less than punitive, it almost invites a corporation to break the law and pay the penalty. But take a year of profit as the fine and force the board to explain THAT to the shareholders and we'll be seeing a huge difference in the way business is conducted. As for the laws and regs themselves...when you have enough enforcers to cover a city the size of LA and expect them to enforce the laws across the entire country, they ain't gonna get the job done. Simple as that. That's what the republican meme of "smaller government" is all about--get rid of government employees who enforce all those laws and regulations. Actually, not exactly. While most conservatives are going to support a reduction in the size of government, it's going to come at the hands of reducing the scope of government, too. Are you going to claim that the EPA doesn't have enough manpower to inspect a plant more than every 28 years? West Texas Fertilizer had to submit a safety protocol to regulators, at both the Federal and State levels. Was there any follow-up on whether or not that plan was sufficient? Why or why not? West Fertilizer is doomed. The company will be bankrupted. The insurance company will pay the $1M and West Texas Fertilizer will pay as much as can be wrung out of it. This will be the proper way to go about it, too. Sadly, there likely won't be enough to cover the physical damage and losses before there isn't anything more to wring out. That leaves families who lost loved ones left in the lurch. They should have had to carry a higher insurance coverage amount.

mnottertail -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 7:34:55 AM)
Well, EPA inspectors are half of what they were in 1980. But isn't this a DHS nominal oversight via W with no actual authority?

DesideriScuri -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 7:45:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Saying "hefty fines" is a knee-jerk reaction. The issue is, who gets fined? Bankruptcy is a wonderful thing. It permits businesses to operate and the worst that can happen is that a business fails. It's intended to protect from both bad luck and simple poor decisions. However, in this case, some of the executives' decisions are irresponsible and likely criminal. The company's assets cannot possibly cover the damage done. So bankruptcy is a feasible course of action, very likely the only course of action. When that occurs, the insurance company will pay out the million it's obligated for, and the company assets will be divvied up to pay the rest, for pennies on the dollar. Adding fines to that will not affect anything. The usual justification for going after the assets of a company's owners ("piercing the corporate veil") is when the owners are running the business to its detriment and their gain. You might be able to make a weak argument that the company's underinsured status was detrimental to the company and resulted in its bankruptcy, and that the owners somehow profited. But I think a better approach would be to hold the owners criminally liable for the violations that resulted in the explosion. I don't see fines as much as jail terms being in the offing. Here's a great question for you though... were their violations that resulted in the explosion? I can't say there were. Nor can I say there weren't. Not notifying DHS that you are storing some shitload of potentially explosive material isn't necessarily a violation that resulted in an explosion. Was there any regulation that would have prevented the company from storing that material where it did? Was there a requirement to carry more coverage? I certainly wish there was, but I don't know if that's accurate. Is there a limit as to how much of the potentially explosive material they were allowed to store on site? I don't think they've even figured out what caused the fire yet. Without that fire, there would have been no explosion.

Lucylastic -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 9:15:10 AM)
There are some 2,200 OSHA inspectors for the country’s 8 million workplaces and 130 million workers. In Texas, OSHA conducted 4,448 inspections in the past fiscal year, a pace that would mean it would visit every workplace in 126 years, according to Death on the Job. In addition, says AFL-CIO Safety and Health Director Peg Seminario, the West Fertilizer plant had just seven employees and “these kind of workplaces are not typically inspected by OSHA.” What people don’t understand is how limited resources are to oversee workplace safety and health. http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/In-The-States/28-Year-Inspection-Gap-at-Deadly-Texas-Fertilizer-Plant-Stunning-Indictment-of-OSHA-s-Underfunding

slvemike4u -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 10:27:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic whats the point of having laws/rules against anything then? The point is that there is a basis for penalties when one is found to not be following the rules. Having some regulations in place is absolutely necessary for the Market to work properly. I'd like to know why the EPA wasn't in there since 1985. I'd also like to know why various agencies within the Federal Government still can't/won't/don't talk to each other. The company gets fined in 2006 and in 2011, but DHS doesn't even know they exist? Why the hell not?!?!? West Texas Fertilizer flouted the rules. If the fire that caused the explosion was arson, the arsonist should also be held responsible. But, West Texas Fertilizer should still bear the majority of the responsibility and consequence. Going back to the 2008 recession, it was shown that Federal regulators and The Fed should have prevented (or limited) the collapse, and that both were found to be lax in their duties. Federal regulators were found to have been surfing porn on Government computers instead of monitoring the economic data. My point in thsi example is that there were already regulations on the books that would have impacted or prevented the Recession, but regulators weren't manning their posts. Adding more regulation (when regulators aren't even enforcing existing ones isn't likely to have a huge impact, eiher. I find it amusing that a right wing proponent of everything "states rights" is able to lay,in its entirety,all blame on the Fed.

slvemike4u -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 10:31:14 AM)
It's not as if the great sovereign state of Texas didn't have some experience with these types of incidences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Disaster It's known as the Texas City disaster of '47 and it is sadly familiar.

DesideriScuri -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 10:39:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic whats the point of having laws/rules against anything then? The point is that there is a basis for penalties when one is found to not be following the rules. Having some regulations in place is absolutely necessary for the Market to work properly. I'd like to know why the EPA wasn't in there since 1985. I'd also like to know why various agencies within the Federal Government still can't/won't/don't talk to each other. The company gets fined in 2006 and in 2011, but DHS doesn't even know they exist? Why the hell not?!?!? West Texas Fertilizer flouted the rules. If the fire that caused the explosion was arson, the arsonist should also be held responsible. But, West Texas Fertilizer should still bear the majority of the responsibility and consequence. Going back to the 2008 recession, it was shown that Federal regulators and The Fed should have prevented (or limited) the collapse, and that both were found to be lax in their duties. Federal regulators were found to have been surfing porn on Government computers instead of monitoring the economic data. My point in thsi example is that there were already regulations on the books that would have impacted or prevented the Recession, but regulators weren't manning their posts. Adding more regulation (when regulators aren't even enforcing existing ones isn't likely to have a huge impact, eiher. I find it amusing that a right wing proponent of everything "states rights" is able to lay,in its entirety,all blame on the Fed. What the fuck part of "If the fire that caused the explosion was arson, the arsonist should also be held responsible. But, West Texas Fertilizer should still bear the majority of the responsibility and consequence." is laying any blame on the Fed?

fucktoyprincess -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 11:09:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess It's my understanding that they weren't required to carry any more insurance than what they had. But they were violating the law in terms of how much dangerous product they were storing in one location - although surely anyone inspecting those facilities would have quickly determined that laws were being violated. A broader issue is that when you are part of a business good ole boys network, you expect to be cut some slack - both by lax legislation, and lax enforcement of whatever legislation exists. In places like Texas, this is how business has operated for decades (if not longer). Everyone operates under the principle that low probability situations do not need to be legislated for, or managed properly. Otherwise how would the good ole boys network make shitloads of money (their god-given right, after all)? [&:] What regulations were enforced differently in this case? Reuters: TX Fertilizer Plant Was Storing "1,350 Times The Amount Of Ammonium Nitrate That Would Normally Trigger Safety Oversight By The U.S. Department Of Homeland Security." On April 20, Reuters reported that the West, Texas, fertilizer plant that exploded on April 17, owned by West Fertilizer, had been storing 270 tons of ammonium nitrate. Reuters noted that "[f]ertilizer plants and depots must report to the DHS when they hold 400 lb (180 kg) or more of the substance," which "can also be used in bomb making," but that West Fertilizer "did not tell the agency about the potentially explosive fertilizer as it is required to do." [Reuters, 4/20/13] Please explain to me how a plant storing 1,350 TIMES the amount of ammonium nitrate that would require oversight by Homeland Security does so without any inspectors who work with ammonium nitrate not realizing this? How large of a plant does one need to store 1,350 TIMES the amount - wouldn't the sheer size of the plant tip someone off that probably too much was being stored in one place? Ammonium Nitrate is a highly dangerous substance (someone else has already mentioned the Texas disaster of '47; in addition I believe Tim McVeigh used ammonium nitrate for the OKC bombings. This is a regulated substance because it is hugely dangerous. But I am trying to understand how an entire plant (with all the people who would be involved in such a plant) goes unnoticed by people who must have been aware that TOO MUCH was being stored there. As with many other regulatory issues, people sometimes look the other way.....

slvemike4u -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 11:09:45 AM)
First you wanted to know why the EPA (a federal agency) wasn't there than you had queries about DHS (another federal agency) nowhere in your post were you willing to question the business friendly state of Texas for having little regulatory legislation and less enforcement than your local aspca

Lucylastic -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 11:18:12 AM)
you are amused, yet not surprised? wb Mike,hugglies

tj444 -> RE: West Fertilizer only had $1 million in insurance. (5/6/2013 11:51:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Saying "hefty fines" is a knee-jerk reaction. The issue is, who gets fined? I would hope the worst offenders would get the hefty fines.. to me, its like speeders.. the cops are hiding in the bushes with their radar guns and wanting to get the worst speeders.. cuz the fines tend to go up the more you go over the speed limit.. so the "ouch" factor is greater.. honestly, how many people can say that fines (& how high the increments are) dont have an affect on the speed they drive? As far as businesses go, higher fines for repeat offences and also sliding based on how much they broke the regs/law.. its too late to do anything about West Fertilizer at this point.. but the govt should be wanting to prevent the next West Fertilizer by increasingly hefty fines and surprise inspections, etc etc.. did ya'll happen to notice (due to student friends of the Boston bomber) how fast the govt made changes regarding foreign students who violate their student visas (by not attending or being expelled from school), now that info at the borders is up-to-the-minute accurate.. if the govt can act that fast in making changes there (it took a few weeks), why cant they make changes to regs/law just as fast to get fertilizer & other dangerous chemical corps to comply to existing safety standards?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125