Just curious, why is the federal taxpayer going to give $8B to rebuild a bridge in Baltimore. A bridge that is apparently covered by insurance.

You really don't know how the world works, do you?

Im not saying it isnt how it works. I'm saying it shouldn't work this way. You insured the item, pay up.


There are multiple insurers, and some insurances won't pay out for acts of malice.

There was no "malice".

you are now just making crap up.

Should the bridge insurer sue the shipping insurers? Absolutely.


The cause of the accident has still not been determined.

So the people of Baltimore should wait a decade while all this is fought out?

Nope. The insurers should start the funding.
 
Im not saying it isnt how it works. I'm saying it shouldn't work this way. You insured the item, pay up.




There was no "malice".

you are now just making crap up.

Should the bridge insurer sue the shipping insurers? Absolutely.




Nope. The insurers should start the funding.

Malice could be sabotage. again, where is the accident report?


You can't make them do that. Are you fucking dense or stupid, or a fucking combination of both?
 
Malice could be sabotage. again, where is the accident report?


You can't make them do that. Are you fucking dense or stupid, or a fucking combination of both?

They took the money to insure it. Pay up.

Also we still have not seen why the funding is 8 billion when the estimate is 2 billion.
 
They took the money to insure it. Pay up.

Also we still have not seen why the funding is 8 billion when the estimate is 2 billion.

Fine. You force them to pay somehow, even though you can't explain how. 1 year later the insurance company wins an appeal and shuts off the funding.

Stops paying the contractor. And contractors get paid monthly.

What then?
 
Fine. You force them to pay somehow, even though you can't explain how. 1 year later the insurance company wins an appeal and shuts off the funding.

Stops paying the contractor. And contractors get paid monthly.

What then?

Deal with it then. Maybe people will insist on insurance reform.
 
Deal with it then. Maybe people will insist on insurance reform.

Again, no real actual method of a solution to the issue described.

You can't make companies pay out and hope to get it back. So you want to basically bypass contract law as well as funding laws.
 
Pay up.



Stop your rambling. The contract was for them to pay up in a loss.

Pay up.

That isn't a method, dumbass.

Have you read the contract? Do you know the terms? The limitations?

Are you familiar with the complexities of Maritime law?
 
That isn't a method, dumbass.

Have you read the contract? Do you know the terms? The limitations?

Are you familiar with the complexities of Maritime law?

They took the money, pay up.
 
They took the money, pay up.

You really are a simpleton.

From Wikipedia this is just a summary of the litigation ongoing.

Barclays, Morningstar DBRS, Fitch Ratings, and the Insurance Information Institute estimated that the insured losses from the collision could range from $1 billion to $4 billion, surpassing the losses from the 2012 Costa Concordia disaster.[169][170][171][172] Lloyd's of London chairman Bruce Carnegie-Brown said the claims could become the largest marine insurance loss in history.[169] Wrongful death liabilities were estimated to total $350 million to $700 million.[170] Moody's Ratings officials said most claims would likely fall on reinsurance companies,[171] about 80 of which provide some $3 billion in coverage to Dali's insurers.[170] The Maryland state government's insurance for the bridge covered up to $350 million for damage, while the bridge cost $60 million to construct in 1977 (about $302 million in 2023).[173]

On April 1, Grace Ocean Private and Synergy Marine Group filed a joint petition in the Maryland U.S. District Court to limit their liability to about $43.6 million under the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851.[174] Chief Judge James K. Bredar is overseeing the proceedings. Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine are represented by Duane Morris and Blank Rome.[175] The legal process could last up to a decade and has been described as likely being "one of the most contentious marine insurance cases in recent decades".[173][176] On April 17, Grace Ocean Private filed a general average declaration to require cargo owners to cover part of the salvage costs.[177]

On April 15, Baltimore's mayor and city council hired personal injury firm Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky and civil rights firm DiCello Levitt to pursue legal action against Grace Ocean, Synergy Marine, and Maersk.[178] On April 22, city officials filed papers accusing Grace Ocean Private and Synergy Marine of negligence,[179] claiming the ship was unseaworthy and had an incompetent crew who ignored warnings of an inconsistent power supply before leaving port.[180] If the vessel is proved unseaworthy, through mechanical or human deficiencies, the judgement will void the entities' insurances.[181]

On April 25, a Baltimore-based publishing company sued Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine in a class-action lawsuit that seeks damages for local businesses whose revenues were reduced by the collapse.[182][183]

On May 2, officials at Willis Towers Watson, the bridge's insurance broker, said that Chubb Limited, the bridge's insurer, was in the process of approving a $350 million insurance claim for the state government.[184][6]

On September 18, Brawner Builders, the construction company that employed workers who died in the collapse, sued Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine for negligence and sought damages.[185] One day later, Ace American Insurance sued the companies, seeking to recoup $350 million it said it paid to the Maryland Transportation Authority as part of its property insurance policy.[186] Lawsuits alleging negligence were also filed against the companies by the families of six workers who died in the collapse, the family of one worker who survived, and the road work inspector on the bridge at the time of collapse.[186][187][188]

Also on September 18, the U.S. Justice Department sued the two companies, alleging negligence, mismanagement, and jury-rigging of Dali's mechanical and electrical systems. The agency sought $100 million, partly to recoup federal expenditures for the emergency response and channel restoration, and partly for punitive damages.[189][190] On October 24, the department announced that Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine had agreed to pay $101.9 million to settle the government's civil claims.[191][192]

On September 24, 2,200 members of the International Longshoremen's Association filed a class-action lawsuit against the two companies seeking compensation for lost wages.[193] That same day, the Maryland state government sued the companies, seeking punitive damages and compensation for: the total replacement cost for the bridge; expenses for the emergency response, salvage, bridge demolition, unemployment insurance, and business interruption relief; lost revenue from tolls, fees, and taxes; other economic losses; and environmental and infrastructure damage.[194]
 
The problem I have is that it's a toll bridge and the STATE keeps the funds.

So taxpayers foot the bill to pay for the construction of a revenue generator for that state.

No, if they want to toll drivers for taking it, they can pay for it themselves.
 
I don't know if anyone has raised this from the latest funding Bill but many online posters have.

They ask why and how?

Anyone know? I'd like to understand.
My first long term career was in building bridges. I believe the owners of the ship paid a huge fee to rebuild the bridge. A factor is was the bridge an interstate or was it an intrastate bridge. I have driven on I 95 and passed that location across the water. The way the bill was crafted it was to go crazy spending public money. My post might cause others to investigate more on this tax issue. Bridges on highways that cross state lines, as those on I 95 qualify for federal funds. The ship did not hit the bridge on I 95.
 
Musk and Vivek are like dogs on a bone. Vivek had already posted on youtube a short clip about some of the fluff long before Elon did.

I just hope Elon is also as active and direct with Trump when he is in office and spending goes off of the rails. Trumps old "I am the debt king" cannot proceed in the current economic situation the U.S is in, thanks to decades of loose funds.

China is driven to bankrupt America. The whole party will be over then without any reprieve for citizens unless you're a billionaire and can move your capital with ease at good rates.

DOGE might save the U.S dollar and save millions of human lives if the world averts WWIII when Americas decline ensures its enemies strike.
Unfortunately, there is probably not a lot of fluff here.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if anyone has raised this from the latest funding Bill but many online posters have.

They ask why and how?

Anyone know? I'd like to understand.
Good question.

I guess that this is intended to speed up the repairs (as opposed to lots of litigation by insurers, etc.).

I haven’t read the full 1500+ pages. But I’m hoping it includes the right of the US government to become the beneficiaries of any insurance payments which would otherwise have (prospectively) gone to Baltimore.
 
Im not saying it isnt how it works. I'm saying it shouldn't work this way. You insured the item, pay up.




There was no "malice".

you are now just making crap up.

Should the bridge insurer sue the shipping insurers? Absolutely.




Nope. The insurers should start the funding.
Why would a bridge have insurance? It's government owned.
 
Back
Top Bottom