I did a double-take on reading this report.
The owner of the life-size replica of Noah’s Ark in Northern Kentucky has sued its insurers for refusing to cover, of all things … rain damage.
Ark Encounter, which unveiled the 510-foot-long model in 2016, says that heavy rains in 2017 and 2018 caused a landslide on its access road, and its five insurance carriers refused to cover nearly $1 million in damages.
There’s more at the link.
But . . . what if the insurers claim that rain damage to (of all things!) Noah’s Ark was, almost by definition, an Act of God?
Peter
Not to be a dick, but not seeing the funny here. Indeed, the post title requires the reader to display deliberate ignorance of basic English language usage just to be at all comprehensible.
In what way is damage to a facility access road in any way dependent upon the nature of the facility being accessed thereby? If the Ark itself had been water damaged, THAT would have been a funny title you wrote. As it is, your work stands as an exemplar of misleading and contemptuous headline writing.
Further (just to get all the pedantry out) (no offense, it's just shaping to be that kind of weekend, it seems), when the next occurrence of a Texas road or bridge failure due to water damage takes place, I look forward to your spleen ventilating when the insurance company involved, citing this apparently hilarious precedence, declines to cover the property owner (that would be the taxpayers of Texas ultimately) expenses incurred restoring the insured property to its previous condition.
This might have been funny, if the facts weren't as they actually are (and are clearly stated as being so in the excerpt you provide). As it is … let's call it a mis-step down a washed out road to a bridge too far, shall we? 🙂
Now, everyone have fun hammering at that metaphor and let's all get our frustrations vented a little bit. 🙂
Your precedent would be valid, if, and only if, public roads were insured. They aren't. In case of storm damage, if a Federal disaster is declared, grants and loans from the Fed can kick in, otherwise, the State, or the municipality, depending on the road and who paid for it to start with is up to them to repair. I see no reason why a private road has to be covered for that sort of thing either, obviously the insurance company shares those views.