It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Insurance company decides it won't cover damages caused by fracking...

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
thought about just resurrecting an old thread for this, but a search didn't come up with anything near being current so well, decided to make a new one.
to me, this is kind of worth letting everyone know about. I mean obviously at least one of the insurance companies think that the risks that fracking poses are too great to take on!



The National Casualty Company, which is part of the Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., says it won’t cover damage related to hydraulic fracturing — or fracking .

www.syracuse.com...




Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide says risks involved in fracking operations “are too great to ignore” and apply to policies of commercial contractors and landowners who lease property to gas companies.


wonder if other insurance companies are following suit??

yep, perfectly safe, no problem here, think I'll lease my land tomorrow!!




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Fracking is insanity!

Insurance is nolonger about being covered, its treated more like a permit.
You must have it - But they wont pay out.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
thought about just resurrecting an old thread for this, but a search didn't come up with anything near being current so well, decided to make a new one.
to me, this is kind of worth letting everyone know about. I mean obviously at least one of the insurance companies think that the risks that fracking poses are too great to take on!



The National Casualty Company, which is part of the Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., says it won’t cover damage related to hydraulic fracturing — or fracking .

www.syracuse.com...




Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide says risks involved in fracking operations “are too great to ignore” and apply to policies of commercial contractors and landowners who lease property to gas companies.


wonder if other insurance companies are following suit??

yep, perfectly safe, no problem here, think I'll lease my land tomorrow!!






Why would they? Unless they are in that type of insurance-coverage business??? The companies performing the hydraulic fracturing services, as well as the oil company having the well drilled, will carry proper insurance for any damages that could happen due to their own activities, so why would a personal property and commercial insurance carrier even cover the property owner? It makes no business sense. UNLESS, the property owner wants to attempt to frac their own well on their own property...lol, which is asking for trouble. At that point, I agree with National's statement that the potential risks are too great.

This is one of those things you don't try at home by yourself....so to speak.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I always wonder what would happen if every single business operated the same way an insurance company does. I mean if I walked into a Taco Bell, ordered a taco, paid them $2.50 or whatever, and then after a few minutes walked up to the counter and asked where my food was, and they refused to give me what I paid for, and every single time I or anyone did this we had to take them to court just to receive what we bought, and every single business operated this way, society as we know it would seize to function. If other businesses can't operate this way, why are insurance companies allowed to operate this way? The entire industry is itself a scandal.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


It's not that the risks are "too great to take on;" it's that a typical commercial liability or homeowner's policy doesn't include such risks to begin with.

In the insurance business, there is no such thing as "too great a risk," you can insure anything if you are willing to pay the premiums.

You seem to be implying that fracking casues such great damage that it is not worth paying a premium for coverage.

There has not been a single proven injury to an American home or business from hydraulic fracturing of wells, even though it has been going on for more than 50 years.
Your thread seems to be drawing upon the speculative and unfounded fears that fracking poison water or put methane into drinking wells.

Preliminary reports in the US have been based upon possible causes, but the public ignores the other likely casues such as poorly drilled or maintained water wells and natural seepage of gas

Methane and oil travel underground naturally and even come to the surface all by themselves in places.
Ever heard of "tar pits" or "hot springs?" .
edit on 14-7-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297


Preliminary reports in the US have been based upon possible causes, but the public ignores the other likely casues such as poorly drilled or maintained water wells and natural seepage of gas

Methane and oil travel underground naturally and even come to the surface all by themselves in places.
Ever heard of "tar pits" or "hot springs?" .


Exactly and that's why I say it makes no sense that a personal property insurance company would even offer this coverage. UNLESS a property owner is requesting it because he thinks he can get a local mom and pop bubba-gump with a pump truck to boost his own personal oil well. And if I were a personal property insurance company I would run like my hair was on fire from that scenario!

If people would just take the time to learn how a well is completed and WHERE the fracturing zones are relative to any water tables, they would understand how they have been jerked by the ring in their nose.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


putting yours and Valhall's comments together, just wondering here....
so, let's say that my neighbor has decided that he wants to make a few bucks by leasing his land out for fracking, and well, then suddenly, out of the blue, there's a massive earthquake where no earthquake has ever hit before.
the insurance company refuses to pay a dime, because, well, fracking has been sighted as a possible cause for the earthquake, while...the company doing the fracking says nonsense, there's other possible things that could have caused that earthquake!!

so, I am left with a huge mortgage to pay, a pit in the ground that once had a house on it, and told to eat my loss???



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by jdub297
 


putting yours and Valhall's comments together, just wondering here....
so, let's say that my neighbor has decided that he wants to make a few bucks by leasing his land out for fracking, and well, then suddenly, out of the blue, there's a massive earthquake where no earthquake has ever hit before.
the insurance company refuses to pay a dime, because, well, fracking has been sighted as a possible cause for the earthquake, while...the company doing the fracking says nonsense, there's other possible things that could have caused that earthquake!!

so, I am left with a huge mortgage to pay, a pit in the ground that once had a house on it, and told to eat my loss???



Since the claim that earthquakes could be caused by hydraulic fracturing can't be proven scientifically, let alone in a court of law, unless you don't have quake insurance, your personal property insurance should cover your damages.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


more than likely, since well the end result of the events outlined by we would be my walking away from mortgage, leaving the bank with a hole in the ground to foreclose on and a bankruptcy hearing.....
and well, we all know that the bank would trump both the insurance company and the fracking company!!! heck, they are too big to fail!!!

I just thought it might be news that would interest some of the readers here.

I mean, there's been fish kills associated with it..what if it was a pond that I just paid a large sum of money to stock, or my primary source of water, ect. ect....

for an insurance company to announce that they won't pay claims that are associated with fracking because of the risks involved kind of tells me that there are risks involved!!



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Valhall
 


more than likely, since well the end result of the events outlined by we would be my walking away from mortgage, leaving the bank with a hole in the ground to foreclose on and a bankruptcy hearing.....
and well, we all know that the bank would trump both the insurance company and the fracking company!!! heck, they are too big to fail!!!

I just thought it might be news that would interest some of the readers here.

I mean, there's been fish kills associated with it..what if it was a pond that I just paid a large sum of money to stock, or my primary source of water, ect. ect....

for an insurance company to announce that they won't pay claims that are associated with fracking because of the risks involved kind of tells me that there are risks involved!!



Well, that's what I'm trying to say. IF some goober was approaching their insurance company and said "I bought a pump truck and I'm going to frac my well to increase my production. Will you cover me or my neighbor if I screw up?" Then it makes perfect sense what National's response was because...hell no, I wouldn't either. But National doesn't have a leg to stand on if they have quake insurance coverage on a property and a quake hits it, because there is no proof that fracturing causes quakes.

As to the fish kills, you'll have to provide me a link because I know of no known proven surface or ground water contamination event that has been definitively linked to PROPER hydraulic fracturing. I'm not saying some idiot who didn't know what he was doing didn't cause a pollution event, but I don't know of any properly performed hydraulic fracturing job performed by legitimate service company causing water contamination at the surface or ground level.

NOW...if you'll provide the link (and I AM very interested in reading about the event), it may have been a situation where a surface SPILL resulted in surface water being contaminated. That's not the same as saying the hydraulic fracturing event itself resulted in surface water being contaminated. That's the equivalent of a truck on the highway turning over and dumping whatever contents it has out and it running to a nearby pond or lake.
edit on 7-14-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
not proven , as far as I know....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ain't nothing gonna ever be proven, unless, well, something bigger than the energy companies come along and have more money to throw at washington and want a piece of the energy pie!!

the only thing that has been proven is that smoking kills...
although the same chemicals that are griped about in the cigs are being added to a large number of other products, and appearantly, they don't kill then....



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
not proven , as far as I know....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ain't nothing gonna ever be proven, unless, well, something bigger than the energy companies come along and have more money to throw at washington and want a piece of the energy pie!!

the only thing that has been proven is that smoking kills...
although the same chemicals that are griped about in the cigs are being added to a large number of other products, and appearantly, they don't kill then....


Okay the original story is gone, it appears, but I was able to track down this, which appears to be at least part of that original news coverage:

gatewaytoheaven.ning.com...

Can we agree that this is NOT an incident that appears to have been even remotely connected to hydraulic fracturing? I mean simply because fish die in a pond and someone throws up a thread and speculates "it must be because of the dreaded fracking!!!" doesn't really mean anything does it?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
[Exactly and that's why I say it makes no sense that a personal property insurance company would even offer this coverage. UNLESS a property owner is requesting it because he thinks he can get a local mom and pop bubba-gump with a pump truck to boost his own personal oil well. And if I were a personal property insurance company I would run like my hair was on fire from that scenario!

If people would just take the time to learn how a well is completed and WHERE the fracturing zones are relative to any water tables, they would understand how they have been jerked by the ring in their nose.


We fracked two wells in 1975 on our property. We drilled two water wells and bought irrigation water from a local co-op.
Since the oil wells and co-op irrigation were pre-existing our purchase, the Farm and Home policy included a "Natural Resources" rider. It added next-to-nothing to our premiums, and we never had a problem with renewals.

Sometimes, threads pop up based upon what people believe or fear rather than reportable facts.
There should be a "Gray Area" forum for those.

Oh, yeah; there is.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


But at the same time that's okay considering it leads to open discussion, right?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by jdub297
 

putting yours and Valhall's comments together, just wondering here....
so, let's say that my neighbor has decided that he wants to make a few bucks by leasing his land out for fracking, and well, then suddenly, out of the blue, there's a massive earthquake where no earthquake has ever hit before.

You can buy earthquake coverage. Our HOA just did for $5,000 for a community of about 300 residents and 80 homes.
I told the Board they were crazy, and should've made a $5,000 bet in Las Vegas AGAINST an earthquake causing damage here. That's all insurance is: a bet against something happening, like flood, fire, burglars, earthquakes.


the insurance company refuses to pay a dime, because, well, fracking has been sighted as a possible cause for the earthquake,


If you didn't buy coverage, why should they pay?


while...the company doing the fracking says nonsense, there's other possible things that could have caused that earthquake!!


If you beleive the oil co. is responsible, you can sue them for their liability insarance limts; but, you will have the burden of proof that THEY casued the earthquake. Your attorney will sue on a "contingency basis," so you have nothing to lose except 40% of your winnings, if you win. The oil co.'s insurance carriier will pay for their defense; so, it will be a "battle of the experts." No one is allowed to drill for oil without a permit and permits require liability policies wiith high limits. You should go for it.


so, I am left with a huge mortgage to pay, a pit in the ground that once had a house on it, and told to eat my loss???

In a word, NO.
Face it, if your house is destroyed, so are your neighbors and the rest of the community. Red Cross and other "charity" agencies will house and clothe you untill your lawsuit is over.

In another word, think.
edit on 14-7-2012 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Valhall
 

for an insurance company to announce that they won't pay claims that are associated with fracking because of the risks involved kind of tells me that there are risks involved!!


There are "risks involved" in being born, bathing, eating, walking.
The question is whether the risks are significant, real and avoidable.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


the only thing that has been proven is that smoking kills...


Actually, life kills.
Birth alwys results in death, as far as I know.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


as far as I know, our insurance will cover earthquakes, not that there is much risk of one occuring here.....floods are another story, but, what can I say....
so, let's assume I am right, and I am covered for earthquakes...but well, it's possible that the earthquake was caused by the fracking and the insurance company feels that they have enough evidence to deny the claim...

okay, so, well, it would land in the field of the facking company to deny that it was them....

so, well, it would be like the cigarettes cause death....because there is evidence that the chemicals in the cigs can cause cancer, but then, those same chemicals, many of which I work with on a daily basis, well, they don't cause death while I am working with them!

I could see where both sides could win in a court of law, yes, there's enough evidence that the fracking cause the earthquake, so the insurance company is let off the hook, but no, there isn't enough to indict the fracking company, they don't have to pay...
and, well, ya, red cross would help house me for awhile, but they wouldn't pay for the mortgage for the home that is no longer there, so I would still be stuck paying it! and well, we don't make enough money to pay for a home we can no longer live in along with the rent for another suitable place to live...
so, well...don't think red cross or charity would be willing to help us out for that long of a time!

yes there are risks in life, but, one should be able to avoid that risk if one choses to . with fracking, it seems that alot of people are trying to avoid it, but the gov't and industry is trying to force them to accept the risk....
they banned smoking everywhere because some just think it's a risk they don't want to take....

my guess would be that only the citizens would be taking the risk here....
the industry and insurance companies would be risk free!



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


You just won't give up on these facetius fears, will you?


Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by jdub297
 

so, let's assume I am right, and I am covered for earthquakes...but well, it's possible that the earthquake was caused by the fracking and the insurance company feels that they have enough evidence to deny the claim...


You are missing the point, entirely.
If you are covered for earthquakes, you are covered for earthqakes, regaedless of whether Nibiru, your neighbor or Shell caused it. There are standard exclusions for "acts of war" and "terrorism," so unless Al Qaeda drilled, you may ne covered. You'd better check, because that is non-syandard coverage.

If someone else caused the earthquake, the insurance comany has a "right of subrogation" to go after the culprits.
Same with your auto. If you have comprehensive coverage and your carrier pays you, they have the right to go after the little old lady that hit you.

You should sit down with your insurance agent and ask about these things; that's what she is paid for. You are paying a premium to the ins. co. and have the right to have your policy explained and summarized for you. You've paid for that in your premiums.


and, well, ya, red cross would help house me for awhile, but they wouldn't pay for the mortgage for the home that is no longer there, so I would still be stuck paying it
and well, we don't make enough money to pay for a home we can no longer live in along with the rent for another suitable place to live...


If you have an adjustable mtg., then it is probably relatively new, and you should have mortgage insurance built into your monthly payments or you paid it up front in a lump sum and the amount was rolled into the amount of the loan. If you have a gov't-backed mtg., you lilely have mtg. insurance.
If you don't, get it.

We have mortgage insurance, and our place was damaged from a neighbor's fire. Our insurance paid for our temporary residence, so we were NOT paying paying for 2 places at one time. Since the idiot neighbor caused the fire to spread, the ins. co. went after them to get back the money they paid us, and we got the extra after they got paid in full. Win,win.


yes there are risks in life, but, one should be able to avoid that risk if one choses to . with fracking, it seems that alot of people are trying to avoid it, but the gov't and industry is trying to force them to accept the risk....


This is complete BS. No one is forcing you to accept any risk that you do not want to.
You may beleive that " it seems that alot of people are trying to avoid" fracking.
Note that you used the word "seems."
If people are trying to avoid fracking, they are doing it not because of the risk of an earthquake or fish kill, but because of their objection to drilling for and producing oil and gas near them. People are trying to avoid chicken farms, too. And windmills. And poweline. And factories.


my guess would be that only the citizens would be taking the risk here....
the industry and insurance companies would be risk free!


Once again, you "guess" something is true, but have no proof to support your guess.
Call your insurance agent right now, and get over your fears of this non-issue.

Nationwide is on your side.

edit on 14-7-2012 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


actually, I live in coal country, probably have a better chance of one of the mining companies blowing the top off a mountain and waking up to the sound of a boulder coming through the roof...
over on the other side of these mountains, in west virginia, they have a more mountain top mining. I am not sure even if it's legal to do it in virginia at the present moment even, but many in west virginia are voicing opposition to the mines, and, it's not because they just don't want it in their backyard!! the bolders do occasionally fly down on people's homes!!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join