Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Hey gang it's time for Shakran's Blunt Hour!
Alleycat, you have no idea what you're talking about. Jazz is right. You could get fire insurance on napalm if you wanted to, as long as you had enough cash to cover the premiums. Being reputable or not has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you're going to try and pull thinly veiled insults, at least be right about them.
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
"As an insurance professional who deals solely in high risk corporate insurance, I can tell you that this is patently false. It is in no way shape or form any version of the truth. There is an entire industry, generally referred to as Excess and Surplus Lines, that exists solely to insure things of this nature. I specialize in casualty coverages (liability) in this industry, but I have coworkers who specialize in property coverages. They find coverage all the time for buildings that lack safety systems, including plastics manufacturers in unsprinklered buildings with no water hookups or nearby bodies of water and served by volunteer fire departments."
Jazz is an insurance broker, not the companies underwriting policies. So that in no way reflects an insult on Jazz. Given WTC 7's nature, and use, they would be operating illegally without these safety systems, in any major city in the USA.
What reputable insurance company would knowingly insure an illegal operation?