NW Houston explosion

[Player 4575]

2 hours ago, deadshank said:

If Dick is a " property damage" attorney, what damages will he sue for?  Wouldn't the affected property owners' P&C insurance policy cover the peril and then subrogate against the insurance carrier of company that had the explosion?

 

 

Good question. Certainly the surrounding homes and businesses that were damaged could go ahead and initiate claims with their own carriers. 

I saw a blurb on the news that one of the neighboring businesses was a corvette restoration place that had over a million dollars worth of cars that were heavily damaged. 

Wonder what kind of policy limits Watson has, and whether the lawsuit might offer those claimants any kind of advantage in getting a recovery. 

[Captainant 27686]

3 hours ago, deadshank said:

At this point of the investigation,  would attorney Dick know if the chemicals were improperly stored?

Well, if last year we hadn't removed the rules in the Clear Air Act that were specifically implemented after the fertilizer plant in West exploded, that require businesses to document how they plan to properly store hazardous materials, it should would be easier for those home owners to make their case. Glad we don't want any sort of oversight on businesses that can potentially take out a city block and cause millions of dollars of property damage to families.

Good thing the city hasn't been exploding every few months for the last couple of years though, it'd be a real motherfucker otherwise

[jkates 316]

If Dick is a " property damage" attorney, what damages will he sue for?  Wouldn't the affected property owners' P&C insurance policy cover the peril and then subrogate against the insurance carrier of company that had the explosion?

 

 

Theoretically, an insured property will get paid per the policy.

 

In reality, the insurance company will undervalue the house, dispute certain damages, etc. in an effort to pay as little as possible.

 

The plaintiff attorneys, theoretically, will fight the insurance companies so that the affected will get more money. They will help their clients file properly, shoo away the wrong contractors, get an independent appraisal, etc.

 

One of my best friends is a personal injury attorney and has over 75 cases from this explosion so far. I bet he ends up with over 100. He's fought my insurance company for me before on a foundation issue. Huge help.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deadshank 24653]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Well, if last year we hadn't removed the rules in the Clear Air Act that were specifically implemented after the fertilizer plant in West exploded, that require businesses to document how they plan to properly store hazardous materials, it should would be easier for those home owners to make their case. Glad we don't want any sort of oversight on businesses that can potentially take out a city block and cause millions of dollars of property damage to families.

Good thing the city hasn't been exploding every few months for the last couple of years though, it'd be a real motherfucker otherwise

It’s not clear if documenting how hazardous materials are to be properly stored will directly affect the risk is explosions.   Revealing plans may identify risks but won’t necessarily prevent problems.  

[deadshank 24653]

2 minutes ago, jkates said:

 shoo away the wrong contractors, get an independent appraisal, etc.

These attorneys rely on “the wrong contractors” and use independent appraisals to more than puff up costs to way beyond reasonable.  I have first hand knowledge of this on multiple occasions.  It is absolutely insane what PAs will ask for and what their contractors and appraisers will come up with and ask for.  

 

[Captainant 27686]

31 minutes ago, deadshank said:

It’s not clear if documenting how hazardous materials are to be properly stored will directly affect the risk is explosions.   Revealing plans may identify risks but won’t necessarily prevent problems.  

The act of documenting the hazardous materials and how they plan to mitigate the risk creates liability for the businesses, because they can't deny that they didn't know the risks, and provides a paper trail and rubric to grade against to see that 1) the mitigations planned were sufficient, and 2) that the actual implementation of the mitigations was followed. It's pretty important for establishing liability and who pays for the damages.

Now, plaintiffs who no longer have a home thanks to this business operating irresponsibly and dangerously have to start from square one. While also trying to figure out a way to keep their life from falling apart because their house literally got hit by a bomb. That's pretty fucked up, imo.

[jkates 316]

These attorneys rely on “the wrong contractors” and use independent appraisals to more than puff up costs to way beyond reasonable.  I have first hand knowledge of this on multiple occasions.  It is absolutely insane what PAs will ask for and what their contractors and appraisers will come up with and ask for.  
 

I have no doubt that many PAs use sketchy people. In my specific case and with my buddy, it was on the up-and-up and I was extremely happy with the way it went. I wanted about $10,000 from my insurance company. They wanted to give me $0. We settled before court and I got a check for just over $10,000. Perfect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mack Tripper 696]

This weekend Gessner was closed north of Clay so I had to take a detour through the neighborhood to get over to the city recycling/junk place near Gessner and Hempstead. The street I drove down had the windows blown out of every house. Also, I doubt many people in that neighborhood have any kind of property insurance. 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Mack Tripper

[Captainant 27686]

Refreshing to see a company actually take responsibility for their malfeasance

https://abc13.com/i-will-repair-all-the-damaged-homes-after-blast-ceo-says/5885170/

Quote

Tuesday morning, John Watson spoke with ABC13's Ted Oberg about the disaster via phone, saying, "I will repair all the damaged homes. My insurance company will."

Oh wait nevermind, the CEO walked it back 

 

Sure would be nice if there was some required risk management plan on file that would be instructive as to determining who is at fault... I'm glad we can trust these profit-driven companies to do the right thing.

[Lat22 4015]

A lawyer obviously got hold of him. I bet he makes it right for every single family, one way or another. 

[Mack Tripper 696]

A lawyer obviously got hold of him. I bet he makes it right for every single family, one way or another. 

Yeah that happens all the time in poor minority neighborhoods that are shit on by industry.

[huge 3795]

13 hours ago, Mack Tripper said:

Yeah that happens all the time in poor minority neighborhoods that are shit on by industry.

Sounds like you know a thing or two about this sort of thing...

[Lat22 4015]

I briefly forgot that I was posting on Surly.  All corporations are evil.  They're all "profit driven" and live to shit on poor minorities.

[Mez2 4025]

15 hours ago, Mack Tripper said:

Yeah that happens all the time in poor minority neighborhoods that are shit on by industry.

 

[deadshank 24653]

17 hours ago, Mack Tripper said:

Yeah that happens all the time in poor minority neighborhoods that are shit on by industry.

It is part of their business plan.  Grow to a size that you're generally considered "industry" and then forget about making money and staying open then just take a lovely six rest ring dump on every minority neighborhood within a hooded 8 iron distance.   Shareholders, partners, owners, employees just love that sort of thing.  It's good business!!

[Mack Tripper 696]

3 hours ago, Lat22 said:

I briefly forgot that I was posting on Surly.  All corporations are evil.  They're all "profit driven" and live to shit on poor minorities.

Tap the brakes there, chief. I didn't say any of that. You're the one who made the extreme statement that this company is going to make it right for every family. My response is that this pretty much never happens. People talk about "lawsuit abuse" referring to frivolous lawsuits. And in many cases that is true. But it is also lawsuit abuse for a responsible party to basically say "eh, sue me" and force victims of their misconduct to hire lawyers and litigate for years and years just because they can. The quick change in position indicates they are going to drag this out.   

[Gooby 640]

Ooops

More than a dozen Corvettes worth about $1 million were trapped inside buildings flattened by the deadly explosion at a Houston manufacturing warehouse, according to a new report.

The Houston Corvette Service, a restoration business, is right across the street from Watson Grinding & Manufacturing, where the Friday morning explosion occurred. Owner Gordon Andrus told CNN that two company buildings — holding about 15 cars worth around $1 million in total — were destroyed.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/houston-explosion-corvettes-worth-1m-trapped-inside-buildings-flattened-by-blow/

[tx 3 putt 77221]

damn lived about 2 mins from that place for 10 years or so, never knew there was a corvette restoration shop in the hood

the valero clay/gessner has/had a couple of very hawt west african siblings working there. great coffee 

[Lat22 4015]

What "misconduct"?

[Captainant 27686]

4 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

damn lived about 2 mins from that place for 10 years or so, never knew there was a corvette restoration shop in the hood

the valero clay/gessner has/had a couple of very hawt west african siblings working there. great coffee 

More excited about the vettes than the bomb next door? Rocko is that you??

[deadshank 24653]

Received an email today from Eric Dick.  Our warehouse is in between his office and the blast sight.  I get emails from him all of the time.

If you're going to Juarez for cheese enchiladas you may want to go before 5 PM Sunday, February 02.

 

Eric Dick, elected President of HCDE is hosting a town hall for those impacted by the Spring Branch explosion.  When : Sunday, February 02, 2020 Time : 5:00 PM Where : Juarez Restaurant / 2545 Gessner Rd, Houston, TX 77080 / 713-690-1790 This meeting is for those impacted by the Spring Branch explosion in Houston Texas. You will have the opportunity to ask questions concerning your property rights and damages as of the result of the explosion on January 24, 2020.  If you or your family were impacted by the Houston explosion and are unable to attend, please contact our office with questions 1-888-660-0088. REGISTER TO ATTEND THE PRESS RELEASE HERE.

Edited January 30, 2020 by deadshank

[NeverMarryAStripper 21912]

I thought I saw a campaign sign for Eric Dick running for City Council yesterday.

Based on this thread the kids and I went to Juarez and ate.  It was good, but not any better than La Fiesta which I have been going to since the 70's (still owned by the same family)

Edited January 30, 2020 by NeverMarryAStripper

[Mack Tripper 696]

6 hours ago, deadshank said:

Received an email today from Eric Dick.  Our warehouse is in between his office and the blast sight.  I get emails from him all of the time.

If you're going to Juarez for cheese enchiladas you may want to go before 5 PM Sunday, February 02.

 

Eric Dick, elected President of HCDE is hosting a town hall for those impacted by the Spring Branch explosion.  When : Sunday, February 02, 2020 Time : 5:00 PM Where : Juarez Restaurant / 2545 Gessner Rd, Houston, TX 77080 / 713-690-1790 This meeting is for those impacted by the Spring Branch explosion in Houston Texas. You will have the opportunity to ask questions concerning your property rights and damages as of the result of the explosion on January 24, 2020.  If you or your family were impacted by the Houston explosion and are unable to attend, please contact our office with questions 1-888-660-0088. REGISTER TO ATTEND THE PRESS RELEASE HERE.

Having a town hall meeting thirty minutes before the super bowl is quite the Dick move. 

 

[Dennis Taylor 18846]

On 1/29/2020 at 3:22 PM, Mack Tripper said:

But it is also lawsuit abuse for a responsible party to basically say "eh, sue me" and force victims of their misconduct to hire lawyers and litigate for years and years just because they can. The quick change in position indicates they are going to drag this out.   

On advice of their own lawyers now doubt 

[Mack Tripper 696]

And Watson just filed for bankruptcy.

[Brisketexan 105170]

37 minutes ago, Mack Tripper said:

And Watson just filed for bankruptcy.

Only real option, I'd suspect.  There are whatever assets exist, plus the policy limits of any applicable insurance, and that's it -- toss those into the pool, and let all the unsecured creditors (including everyone whose windows blew out) scramble for pennies on the dollar.

If you've got homeowner's insurance, the only clean move is to file your claim with our insurer, and let them go after the money in the bankruptcy court, if they think there's any to get.

Just remember, under the rules we've created, the profits of businesses go to the narrow class of owners, the risks/costs that business imposes on others are socialized onto everyone else.  It's why having reasonable regulations and insurance requirements isn't ANTI-capitalism (allows for risk-takers to win or lose), it's CONSISTENT with capitalism.  And honestly, it's not too much to ask.  If you're going to do something hazardous that creates a $10 million risk, then you ought to carry something close to that in insurance.

[deadshank 24653]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Only real option, I'd suspect.  There are whatever assets exist, plus the policy limits of any applicable insurance, and that's it -- toss those into the pool, and let all the unsecured creditors (including everyone whose windows blew out) scramble for pennies on the dollar.

If you've got homeowner's insurance, the only clean move is to file your claim with our insurer, and let them go after the money in the bankruptcy court, if they think there's any to get.

Just remember, under the rules we've created, the profits of businesses go to the narrow class of owners, the risks/costs that business imposes on others are socialized onto everyone else.  It's why having reasonable regulations and insurance requirements isn't ANTI-capitalism (allows for risk-takers to win or lose), it's CONSISTENT with capitalism.  And honestly, it's not too much to ask.  If you're going to do something hazardous that creates a $10 million risk, then you ought to carry something close to that in insurance.

Filing with one's own insurance carrier should be done and the the homeowner's carrier then subrogates against Watson's carrier.  That is how the model is built.  Renters without renter's insurance can be in a jam.  Property owners without insurance should know better. 

Profits of businesses should go to owners.  They can choose to share with others (employees) as they see fit.  What does "the risks / costs that business imposes on others are socialized to everyone else" mean.  Elaborate, please.

Regarding "doing something hazardous that creates a $10 million risk, then you ought to carry something close to that in insurance," does anyone know what Watson's aggregate limits are?  Does anyone yet know the cause of the explosion?  What happens if Watson did everything right, most things right or say 1/2 of everything right and the cause of the explosion was due to the failure of a part fabricated and installed by another party and on which Watson relied?   

Before everyone goes off the rails, the cause of the blast should be determined.  It could be Watson's fault or, possibly, someone else's.  (But that is not stopping the filing of lawsuits.)

Edited February 6, 2020 by deadshank

[Dry Elbows 142]

1 hour ago, Mack Tripper said:

And Watson just filed for bankruptcy.

My understanding is they filed for Ch. 11. 

[Brisketexan 105170]

16 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Does anyone yet know the cause of the explosion?  What happens if Watson did everything right, most things right or say 1/2 of everything right and the cause of the explosion was due to the failure of a part fabricated and installed by another party and on which Watson relied?   

Before everyone goes off the rails, the cause of the blast should be determined.  It could be Watson's fault or, possibly, someone else's.  (But that is not stopping the filing of lawsuits.)

Absolutely -- gotta determine the responsible party.  And of course that won't stop the filing of suits, nor should it -- if Watson thinks that "Eddies Valves and Stuff" is truly responsible, they should designated them as a responsible third party.

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

On 1/29/2020 at 5:41 PM, tx 3 putt said:

the valero clay/gessner has/had a couple of very hawt west african siblings working there. great coffee 

Pics of west African siblings, please.

[deadshank 24653]

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Absolutely -- gotta determine the responsible party. And of course that won't stop the filing of suits, nor should it -- if Watson thinks that "Eddies Valves and Stuff" is truly responsible, they should designated them as a responsible third party.

So sue even though you're not quite sure what really happened?

[Brisketexan 105170]

2 minutes ago, deadshank said:

So sue even though you're not quite sure what really happened?

Ummmm.....yeah?  I mean, the only other option is to take a Rule 202 deposition of someone.  You don't get to just go poking around and conduct full discovery without a lawsuit.  And an attorney absolutely has a good-faith belief that there is likely at least some amount of negligence on the part of Watson, so it's a good-faith suit to file.

If you waited until you knew exactly what happened in any event, 1) no suit could ever be filed, and 2) discovery in the litigation process wouldn't be a thing.  No, you shouldn't haul off and sue someone totally unrelated to the event without some basis to do so, but yeah, Watson's facility blew up and damaged people's houses -- they have a credible claim that Watson screwed something up, even if they don't yet know the exact mechanism by which they screwed up.

[wildcat09 29357]

1 hour ago, deadshank said:

Filing with one's own insurance carrier should be done and the the homeowner's carrier then subrogates against Watson's carrier.  That is how the model is built.  Renters without renter's insurance can be in a jam.  Property owners without insurance should know better. 

Profits of businesses should go to owners.  They can choose to share with others (employees) as they see fit.  What does "the risks / costs that business imposes on others are socialized to everyone else" mean.  Elaborate, please.

Regarding "doing something hazardous that creates a $10 million risk, then you ought to carry something close to that in insurance," does anyone know what Watson's aggregate limits are?  Does anyone yet know the cause of the explosion?  What happens if Watson did everything right, most things right or say 1/2 of everything right and the cause of the explosion was due to the failure of a part fabricated and installed by another party and on which Watson relied?   

Before everyone goes off the rails, the cause of the blast should be determined.  It could be Watson's fault or, possibly, someone else's.  (But that is not stopping the filing of lawsuits.)

*waves around at the neighborhood this business blew up*

[HouTex 1887]

Res ipsa!!

[Brisketexan 105170]

1 minute ago, HouTex said:

Res ipsa!!

If the thing speaks for itself, why can't it speak in fucking English, man?

[deadshank 24653]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummmm.....yeah?  I mean, the only other option is to take a Rule 202 deposition of someone.  You don't get to just go poking around and conduct full discovery without a lawsuit.  And an attorney absolutely has a good-faith belief that there is likely at least some amount of negligence on the part of Watson, so it's a good-faith suit to file.

If you waited until you knew exactly what happened in any event, 1) no suit could ever be filed, and 2) discovery in the litigation process wouldn't be a thing.  No, you shouldn't haul off and sue someone totally unrelated to the event without some basis to do so, but yeah, Watson's facility blew up and damaged people's houses -- they have a credible claim that Watson screwed something up, even if they don't yet know the exact mechanism by which they screwed up.

It's obvious I'm not an attorney.  My company has been sued for damages to a home.  We had absolutely nothing to do with the damages but we got sued because the plaintiff's attorney desperately wanted to lay blame on us.  After a long amount of time and attorney's fees defending ourselves (yes my CGL carrier defended us), the plaintiff's attorney realized that "oh, never mind, so sorry."

We got sued for no reason at all (other than we had $2 million worth of insurance coverage) and the at fault party had $0.00.

Have a nice day!

[deadshank 24653]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

*waves around at the neighborhood this business blew up*

Please, go back to the CR.  The grown ups are having a conversation.

[Brisketexan 105170]

1 minute ago, deadshank said:

It's obvious I'm not an attorney.  My company has been sued for damages to a home.  We had absolutely nothing to do with the damages but we got sued because the plaintiff's attorney desperately wanted to lay blame on us.  After a long amount of time and attorney's fees defending ourselves (yes my CGL carrier defended us), the plaintiff's attorney realized that "oh, never mind, so sorry."

We got sued for no reason at all (other than we had $2 million worth of insurance coverage) and the at fault party had $0.00.

Have a nice day!

And that sucks, and if it was absolutely groundless, the attorney should have been sanctioned.

I've had clients in "mistaken identity" cases -- as in "dude, you sued, Vanderlay Company, not Vanderlay Industries - we don't have a facility anywhere near you.  You got it wrong.  Look over the papers I just sent you, and I presume you'll nonsuit us and go after the right defendant."  That's always worked.

I've had clients who had to ARGUE about whether they actually did something wrong....and that's what the adversarial system does.  If we had a clean defense, we presented it, and won at summary judgment or some other dismissal stage.  It helps when you remind the plaintiff's attorney that he's working for free if he's got a shitty claim, so it's to his advantage to figure that out early and cut his losses early.

But I won't represent that the system is perfect, and that people don't get disproportionately caught in the crossfire....just like people with really, really good claims end up not recovering anything because a bad operator had no assets and was underinsured -- sure, the owner banked $1,000,000 a year out of the business, including profits he should have spent on safety and insurance, but tough luck, that's the way it works.

[wildcat09 29357]

3 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Please, go back to the CR.  The grown ups are having a conversation.

Psst, I'm also an attorney.

[deadshank 24653]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Psst, I'm also an attorney.

My condolences. 

[deadshank 24653]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And that sucks, and if it was absolutely groundless, the attorney should have been sanctioned.

I've had clients in "mistaken identity" cases -- as in "dude, you sued, Vanderlay Company, not Vanderlay Industries - we don't have a facility anywhere near you.  You got it wrong.  Look over the papers I just sent you, and I presume you'll nonsuit us and go after the right defendant."  That's always worked.

I've had clients who had to ARGUE about whether they actually did something wrong....and that's what the adversarial system does.  If we had a clean defense, we presented it, and won at summary judgment or some other dismissal stage.  It helps when you remind the plaintiff's attorney that he's working for free if he's got a shitty claim, so it's to his advantage to figure that out early and cut his losses early.

But I won't represent that the system is perfect, and that people don't get disproportionately caught in the crossfire....just like people with really, really good claims end up not recovering anything because a bad operator had no assets and was underinsured -- sure, the owner banked $1,000,000 a year out of the business, including profits he should have spent on safety and insurance, but tough luck, that's the way it works.

In the case I detailed, another trade clearly modified our completed and properly functioning work and admitted to doing so.  Didn't get us out of the frying pan.  Plaintiff's attorney wanted at our insurance carrier's money, products and completed operations and what not. 

Yes.  I'm still irritated by it. 

[Brisketexan 105170]

8 minutes ago, deadshank said:

In the case I detailed, another trade clearly modified our completed and properly functioning work and admitted to doing so.  Didn't get us out of the frying pan.  Plaintiff's attorney wanted at our insurance carrier's money, products and completed operations and what not. 

Yes.  I'm still irritated by it. 

Don't blame you -- I'll now list all of the pleasurable aspects of being involved in litigation:______________________________________________________________________

And I know you believe that you established a zero-liability scenario, but I can't tell you how many times over the years I've had a client or opposing party tell me a "black and white, I didn't do anything remotely wrong, and it's all on this other guy" story, when in reality, there was at least SOME basis to conclude there was partial negligence/culpability on the first party.  I presume y'all filed a motion for summary judgment or similar vehicle to dismiss the case, and the court denied it, saying there was some fact question.  That happens.  It happens sometimes in cases where it shouldn't (I've been pissed off at a denial of summary judgment plenty of times).

Sorry you went through the process.  It's not a perfect system, because the truth is, we can't build one.  We are reconstructing what happened and whose fault it was after the fact.  And there are disputes about the facts and what actually happened.  Tilting the scales one way or the other, to avoid even the RISK of injustice to one side or the other, is a solution that's worse than the problem.

Ideally, parties evaluate the facts objectively, determine the actual liability, and settle based on that -- and do so before spending a fortune on attorney's fees.  How often does that happen?  Quite rarely -- we attorneys have job security.  Because our business model depends on people being unreasonable ("NO WAY did I do anything wrong!" or "NO WAY am I taking a penny less than my full damages, even though that guy's only 50% at fault").....and it's a STRONG business model.

[TwiceHorn 31511]

I would assume, deadshank, that your lawsuit (not yours but the one you speak of) arose out of a remodel or some kind of project with multiple contractors?  Yes?

It's not always immediately clear who fucked it up to an outsider.  It is to you, of course, but not to anyone else.  Since someone else fucked up your work, to an outsider it was your work and it was fucked up.  You can't really expect an outsider, with money on the line to fix the fuckup, to just take your good word that the other guy fucked it up and not you.  And of course, the other guy is probably not exactly fessing up to fucking it up, and, I'm sure, saying you fucked it up. 

And if it was a roofing job and the roof is fucked up (example only), then understandably you may have some splainin to do.  The rules of the game don't allow you to just explain and walk away.

So yeah, being a defendant in a lawsuit sucks absolute dick.  I get that.  Being a plaintiff usually isn't a ton of fun either, even when they have a contingency fee attorney.

Completely frivolous lawsuits are pretty rare.  Lawsuits perceived by defendants as frivolous are not.  Defendants are usually lacking a bit of perspective there.  It's a cost of doing business.

And that doesn't even take into account brisket's scenario where people on both sides are being unreasonable.

Edited February 6, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[deadshank 24653]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I would assume, deadshank, that your lawsuit (not yours but the one you speak of) arose out of a remodel or some kind of project with multiple contractors?  Yes?

It's not always immediately clear who fucked it up to an outsider.  It is to you, of course, but not to anyone else.  Since someone else fucked up your work, to an outsider it was your work and it was fucked up.  You can't really expect an outsider, with money on the line to fix the fuckup, to just take your good word that the other guy fucked it up and not you.  And of course, the other guy is probably not exactly fessing up to fucking it up, and, I'm sure, saying you fucked it up. 

And if it was a roofing job and the roof is fucked up (example only), then understandably you may have some splainin to do.  The rules of the game don't allow you to just explain and walk away.

So yeah, being a defendant in a lawsuit sucks absolute dick.  I get that.  Being a plaintiff usually isn't a ton of fun either, even when they have a contingency fee attorney.

Completely frivolous lawsuits are pretty rare.  Lawsuits perceived by defendants as frivolous are not.  Defendants are usually lacking a bit of perspective there.  It's a cost of doing business.

And that doesn't even take into account brisket's scenario where people on both sides are being unreasonable.

Waterproofed a balcony.  Iron railing contractor attached his rail footings through the waterproofing membrane.  

Leaky leaky.  

Plans said to anchor railing into limestone masonry with railing resting on non-penetrating pedestals on top of waterproofing membrane. He did just the opposite.  Forensic testing proved all of this  

Everything was on the plans, we installed per the plans and he didn’t.  

We got sued.  He didn’t.  

We had GLI.  He didn’t.  

Plaintiff’s attorney objective was clear as a bell.   Go after the group that has money we can access.   

[Mack Tripper 696]

Only real option, I'd suspect.  There are whatever assets exist, plus the policy limits of any applicable insurance, and that's it -- toss those into the pool, and let all the unsecured creditors (including everyone whose windows blew out) scramble for pennies on the dollar.
If you've got homeowner's insurance, the only clean move is to file your claim with our insurer, and let them go after the money in the bankruptcy court, if they think there's any to get.
Just remember, under the rules we've created, the profits of businesses go to the narrow class of owners, the risks/costs that business imposes on others are socialized onto everyone else.  It's why having reasonable regulations and insurance requirements isn't ANTI-capitalism (allows for risk-takers to win or lose), it's CONSISTENT with capitalism.  And honestly, it's not too much to ask.  If you're going to do something hazardous that creates a $10 million risk, then you ought to carry something close to that in insurance.

Don’t disagree, but as I said upthread, the people in that neighborhood very likely don’t have homeowners insurance and are likely fucked. Watson went from “making this right” to bankruptcy in a matter of days. A movie we’ve all seen before.

[Hate 20128]

You think those houses are mostly owned and not mortgaged? I don’t know the area, but if the homeowners have a mortgage then they have insurance.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

There's already an independent government agency investigating this that does a much better job than any lawyer is going to be able to do. This whole attitude that we have to sue to find out what happened is BS in cases like this and a huge part of the reason why many people have a negative view of lawyers.

[Captainant 27686]

23 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

There's already an independent government agency investigating this that does a much better job than any lawyer is going to be able to do. This whole attitude that we have to sue to find out what happened is BS in cases like this and a huge part of the reason why many people have a negative view of lawyers.

Well it wouldn't be such a motherfucker if they hadn't been there beneficiaries of neutering the clean air act. There's nothing to hold the company accountable with, aside from lawyers. Because enabling business growth through deregulation is never a bad idea, right?

[TwiceHorn 31511]

It is conceivable that, due to the number of claimants, Watson filed Chapter 11 not so much to screw claimants as just an orderly way of dealing with the claims.

That probably means some folks get screwed.

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2652]

On 2/6/2020 at 3:12 PM, Brisketexan said:

Only real option, I'd suspect.  There are whatever assets exist, plus the policy limits of any applicable insurance, and that's it -- toss those into the pool, and let all the unsecured creditors (including everyone whose windows blew out) scramble for pennies on the dollar.

If you've got homeowner's insurance, the only clean move is to file your claim with our insurer, and let them go after the money in the bankruptcy court, if they think there's any to get.

Just remember, under the rules we've created, the profits of businesses go to the narrow class of owners, the risks/costs that business imposes on others are socialized onto everyone else.  It's why having reasonable regulations and insurance requirements isn't ANTI-capitalism (allows for risk-takers to win or lose), it's CONSISTENT with capitalism.  And honestly, it's not too much to ask.  If you're going to do something hazardous that creates a $10 million risk, then you ought to carry something close to that in insurance.

They made and repaired industrial valves right?  I would think they would need to have over ten million in insurance just to have their product allowed in a plant.