I’m with good hands. If the pool owners were negligent, the parents of the kid will be smarter as they now own the place. Besides, what business owner with half a brain and a pool would run without coverage?
Insurance is the only way to handle a situation like this. Pay if liable, defend if not. What if the business is operating in the red or the assets are worthless? what good would that do the parents?
While I strongly advocate purchasing insurance where risk cannot otherwise be managed, I’m not sure how having insurance would have prevented this boy’s death.
This bill is a very good idea. There is no excuse for a business like a water park not to be carrying insurance. Insurance companies exist to do more than just deepen the consumers’ pockets. For one, a good insurance company will have a loss prevention department designed to educate consumers and help to identify potential causes of loss before they happen. There is of course no guarantee a simple safety inspection, which I hope would occur prior to binding a (new) risk, would have prevented this tragic outcome.
lastbat is correct. I would bet money this bill was introduced by folks with a vested interest in finding deep pockets. Beyond that, not all “good” insurance companies have strong loss control departments.
Adding just one more RE: to the pile.
A bill requiring insurance is not what is needed here, let the market work. Get a judgement against the pool, seize and sell the assets and put them out of business. Make sure the whole thing gets plenty of press and we sell liability insurance to other pool operators because they are persuaded that they need it,not because they grudginly have to have it.
The article didn’t comment on whether the pool operators were actually negligent in any way. Sometimes bad things just happen.
Lindsay is right – insurance will do more than create a deep pocket. A good insurer will help the company put solid loss-control mechanisms in place. There are a lot of companies that would probably demand good loss-control before even considering underwriting a company.
Unfortunately, the case that prompted this issue involved a minor child who couldn’t swim and was supposed to be watched by another adult. The parents weren’t even present at the time. In spite of all the precautions, kids still drown in pools and nobody can be faulted. The presence of a lifeguard doesn’t guarantee 100% safety. Parents watching small kids is better prevention.
I didn’t say this was bad legislation. I was just responding to michelle who said “While I strongly advocate purchasing insurance where risk cannot otherwise be managed, I’m not sure how having insurance would have prevented this boy’s death.” The insurance would not have prevented the death, it would have only created a deep pocket.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I’m with good hands. If the pool owners were negligent, the parents of the kid will be smarter as they now own the place. Besides, what business owner with half a brain and a pool would run without coverage?
Insurance is the only way to handle a situation like this. Pay if liable, defend if not. What if the business is operating in the red or the assets are worthless? what good would that do the parents?
While I strongly advocate purchasing insurance where risk cannot otherwise be managed, I’m not sure how having insurance would have prevented this boy’s death.
The bill isn’t intended to prevent the injury or death. The only purpose is to create a deep pocket.
This bill is a very good idea. There is no excuse for a business like a water park not to be carrying insurance. Insurance companies exist to do more than just deepen the consumers’ pockets. For one, a good insurance company will have a loss prevention department designed to educate consumers and help to identify potential causes of loss before they happen. There is of course no guarantee a simple safety inspection, which I hope would occur prior to binding a (new) risk, would have prevented this tragic outcome.
lastbat is correct. I would bet money this bill was introduced by folks with a vested interest in finding deep pockets. Beyond that, not all “good” insurance companies have strong loss control departments.
Adding just one more RE: to the pile.
A bill requiring insurance is not what is needed here, let the market work. Get a judgement against the pool, seize and sell the assets and put them out of business. Make sure the whole thing gets plenty of press and we sell liability insurance to other pool operators because they are persuaded that they need it,not because they grudginly have to have it.
The article didn’t comment on whether the pool operators were actually negligent in any way. Sometimes bad things just happen.
Somebody else is using my name.
Lindsay is right – insurance will do more than create a deep pocket. A good insurer will help the company put solid loss-control mechanisms in place. There are a lot of companies that would probably demand good loss-control before even considering underwriting a company.
Good legislation.
Unfortunately, the case that prompted this issue involved a minor child who couldn’t swim and was supposed to be watched by another adult. The parents weren’t even present at the time. In spite of all the precautions, kids still drown in pools and nobody can be faulted. The presence of a lifeguard doesn’t guarantee 100% safety. Parents watching small kids is better prevention.
I didn’t say this was bad legislation. I was just responding to michelle who said “While I strongly advocate purchasing insurance where risk cannot otherwise be managed, I’m not sure how having insurance would have prevented this boy’s death.” The insurance would not have prevented the death, it would have only created a deep pocket.