No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[Asher]

Oh, sure, we need people like you who blindly follow a bunch of incoherent crap for the system to work as well as it does, but I'm not sure it's something to be proud of.

I don't blindly do anything so much as you blindly crunch numbers and build models. I live in the real world.

[Asher]

While I agree with all those that state that the city firefighters had no legal obligation to put out this fire and It's the owners fault for the fire in the first place and neglecting to pay the fee, and from a pr standpoint it probably would have been better if they hadn't bother to even go. (which would have been hard since they were obligated to deal with it if it spread), But once they were on-site with their equipment, how could they not have helped. Moral obligation/charity is not really part of the equation for me. I'd have an obligation to my fellow man to help, and couldn't sit by and do nothing. I consider those that did schmucks.

I don't think we can blame the individual firemen too much. Apparently many of them called the family to apologize, but they were under direct orders from the fire chief to do nothing.

[Tuberski]

I find it interesting that the guy forgot to pay the premium twice in the last few years and both times he had a fire at the house.

ACK!

[Asher]

Maybe his evil grandson is trying to teach him a lesson.

[Tuberski]

And what sort of family doesn't rescue their pets when they evacuate the house?!?!?!

Even if they had paid, it would have been too late for the pets.

ACK!

[MikeH]

Anyone who risks their life to save a pet is an idiot.

[Solomwi]

Kuci, would contributory negligence cover this?

pleasepleaseplease

Unfortunately, no. Tennessee adopted comparative fault sometime in the 1990s. If TN were still a contrib state, though, a case for it could probably be made either on the basis of not subscribing to the available fire service or, more likely, assuming the facts bore it out, some involvement with the grandson's garbage fire plan.

[Solomwi]

But didn't we discover that he only missed the payment because he was away from home when it was due? And he'd paid previously, so he wasn't trying to dupe the system.

So whatever the economic rights and wrongs we can be sympathetic that a mistake cost him his house right?

"We were away" doesn't float. Okay, you spent a few days out of town and missed the due date. Pay when you get back. I seriously doubt the SFFD refuses premium payments because they came too late in the year. That he had paid previously and now has excuses to throw around doesn't mean he wasn't trying to dupe the system. Maybe this was just the year he and the wife decided that $75 a year wasn't really doing anything but fattening up those bureaucrats in South Fulton and would be better spent on creamsicle-colored clothing and corncob pipes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think you realize this is a compliment.

QFT. Really does tend to elevate Asher as a person, IMO.

[Jon Miller]

I am a bit worried that I am agreeing with KH this thread. Not with everything, mind you, but with the idea that the Firefighters deserve compensation if they are going to fight fires.

JM

[MOBIUS]

I think there's not a single person on this thread that doesn't agree with that sentiment, JM, but that's not what this is all about.

Would you, brought up on Christian values as you are, not try to help if you were well equipped to do so?

[SlowwHand]

No individual was well-equipped. The city was well-equipped. The city said "No".

[Arrian]

hope this guy's fire insurance had a provision in it that said he needed to have access to a functioning fire protection service...

I would expect that, yeah. That was my first reaction to the story, but then I'm an insurance claims guy.

The insurance article specifically mentions this. Technically his company doesn't have to cover him since he didn't buy service.

But they're covering him anyway.

Good people.

Interesting. I wonder if that will actually buy them any goodwill (it seems to me that insurance companies are so far into the "considered evil" category publicly that it's a lost cause, but I could be wrong).

I'm not sure it's a good idea to start paying claims that are specifically excluded (in whole or in part) on a "aw, this one sounds sad" basis. Why these and not others? Eventually, a lawyer will get you in court and point out that you decided to pay THIS claim but not THAT one, even though both were excluded.

At which point your company may be screwed.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

As for the moral obligation of the fire department...

On the one hand, this county/city situation has a serious moral hazard/free rider problem. That's clear.

On the other, I'm pretty shocked they went out there and just watched the house burn.

Now, assuming the county continues to be a bunch of effing morons (they specifically rejected funding for county-wide coverage in 2002), the ethical solution is probably to bill for services the way they do when they have to pull idiot hikers/skiers out of the wilderness. Is it the best solution, from an economics standpoint? No. But it does avoid the problem of your fire department standing around when a guy's house is burning down (pleading you to save it and offering to pay whatever the cost). Agree, enforce it via a lien, but put out the fire. That's the way I'd go.

Having said all of that, the homeowner is a MASSIVE douche.

-Arrian

[rah]

I don't think we can blame the individual firemen too much. Apparently many of them called the family to apologize, but they were under direct orders from the fire chief to do nothing.

While I agree that we can't blame them that much, I still wouldn't have been able to just watch and do nothing.


Goodwill for the Insurance company is probably good, but I'm also shocked that their legal dept would approve that.