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.
Comment on Insurance loss for US bridge collapse could hit $3bn
LodeMike@lemmy.today 10 months ago
Oh yeah because insurance companies paying what they’re contractually obliged to is “loss”
Rentlar@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Lightborne@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What a bizarre comment. What are they supposed to call it, a “gain”?
LodeMike@lemmy.today 10 months ago
Cost/expense.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 10 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.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 10 months ago
Insurance has overhead insurance for these things.
And if they don’t they should fail.
Yrt@feddit.de 10 months ago
Yeah and these reinsurances are also insurance companies, so the statement “insurances could lose up to 1.3bn” 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@lemmy.world 10 months ago
No, but they planned for one bridge every 50 years. So this is that year.