Gas Tanker Crash Melts California Bay Area Overpass

April 30, 2007

  • April 30, 2007 at 8:40 am
    einstein says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My understanding is that there are only 2 or 3 carriers that will write this risk. Usually they will carry excess liabilty and usually it stops at 7 million. The trucking company will be short, and will then higher an attorney to go against the contractor, steel co., and etc. The bottom-line it will be in court.

  • April 30, 2007 at 1:38 am
    Bulldogg says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Pay close attention to this article. I guess that this is only the SECOND time in history that fire has melted steel…

    How can one go through life and remain so ignorant of things that the cavemen knew a few thousand years ago???

  • April 30, 2007 at 1:49 am
    algore says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is just another example of global warming that the evil bush regime is trying to hide the truth. I must point out if you beleive this fictious stroy about the truck causing the bridge to melt that why didn\’t the driver buy the appropriate carbon credits to burn that much fossil fuel? Vote for me in 2009!

  • April 30, 2007 at 4:00 am
    DAVID says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    the insurer was on the driver?

  • April 30, 2007 at 4:26 am
    Curious of the Truck Insurer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I would like to know the insurer of the truck that burned the highway.

  • May 1, 2007 at 12:02 pm
    Einstein Who says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey, Einstein – I\’m pretty sure you meant \”hire\” an attorney. Unless, of course, you were addressing the ultimate cost of the claim as a result of the attorney.

    Doesn\’t matter who the insurance carrier is – they just bought a bridge.

  • May 1, 2007 at 12:10 pm
    Question says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ok….i\’m mildly new to the insurance world….so i know to some extent, common sense does not apply. (mild joke)

    wouldn\’t the truck driver\’s insurance company only be liable for the damage caused when the driver hit the bridge and NOT the fact that the steel melted?

    kind of like how insurance companies cover hurricane damage but not wind damage from the hurricane (still trying to wrap my mind around that one).

  • May 1, 2007 at 12:41 pm
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The article did not give enough information about the accident to know who will be liable. It may be the truck driver, or may be a lucky California automobile operator with the California minimums, which I think are 15/25/10.
    Talk about restitution.

  • May 1, 2007 at 1:06 am
    Proximate Cause says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Proximate cause – had he not hit the bridge, the fire would not have started, etc., etc. – uninterrupted chain of events.

  • May 1, 2007 at 1:36 am
    Coverage Amounts says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The minimun limits in CA are 15/30/5. However, a CalTrans requirement for a petroleum hauler is much higher. When the policy limits are exhausted, I\’m sure the release will be complete & taxpayers can foot the additional amounts! Lucky us!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*