So, you think you know Fire Insurance?

So, you think you know Fire Insurance?

At the turn of the Last Century, the best minds in Fire Insurance were directed to the riveting  issue of apportionment of losses under non-concurrent policies. As the respected W. N. Bament, General Adjuster of the Home Insurance Company wrote in 1922: “ It has commanded the attention on the fire insurance business for nearly a century, and although many rules have been devised, the prospect of discovering the philosopher’s stone is a remote as ever. “ 

In the name of fame, glory and a gift card, which of the following was 

NOT an accepted method of apportionment?

The Reading Rule

The Albany Rule

Gradual  Reduction Rule

The Modified Reading Rule

The Limited Inability Rule

The Modified Finn Rule

The Kottabos Rule

The Continuity Error

The Rice Rule

The Giesse Rule

The Morristown Rule

Submit your answer via LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook comment and we will do a random drawing of the correct answers to determine the winner of a gift card courtesy of Provencher & Company. Drawing will be held September 30, 2014.

Jerry Provencher
CEO/Executive General Adjuster

Provencher & Company
Professional Claim Services

 *Winning recipient must agree to have their name publicly announced on social media in order to receive the prize.*

The First Catastrophe Office

Following the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 the fire loss adjusters set up an office where they could meet, compare notes, and confer about the hundreds of losses which required adjustment. They agreed on the Sherman House, on West Madison Street and for months afterwards frequent meetings were held and claimants by the hundred were interviewed, the claims adjusted and losses paid. It was a sort of a storm office and the adjusters organized to jointly employed clerks, stenographers and, appraisers.

During the busy days of the work of adjusting, the owner/editor of  The Times newspaper called to see about his loss, and finding a large crowd of people waiting for a similar purpose he became impatient. In those days as in ours, Important Things happen to Important People, and he repaired to his sanctum, publishing a sensational editorial about the delay and red tape in getting his loss adjusted. He had apparently been told that he would have to await his turn; however, he closed his editorial by stating that there ought to be inscribed over the door of the catastrophe office the words, "Who enters here leaves hope behind;" and also made use of the well-known Latin quotation, "Soc Et Tu Um”.

The adjusters, apparently delighted with the pomposity, concocted the idea of having a little gold souvenir badge made with the inscription "Soc Et Tu Um" and presented one to each adjuster of the office. It is reported the badges were highly prized and worn as a kind of lapel pin for many years. 

Contributed by:

Jerry Provencher
CEO/Executive General Adjuster

Did the Cow Start the Fire?

Modern day forensic investigations have questioned the origin of The Great Chicago Fire as being the much maligned Mrs. O’Leary’s cow. However, Phoenix Insurance Company General Adjuster Robert S. Critchell confirmed he interviewed Mrs. O’Leary following the fire and he was “…informed by her in rather an ungracious way that the story was true. “

Recollections of a Fire Insurance Man, Press of Rogers & Hall Co., 1909

Contributed by:
Jerry Provencher

CEO/Executive General Adjuster

******

Did you know…?

Did you know…?

Cleanup at Clark and Madison Streets after Chicago Fire, IL, 1871.

The reason a small fire turned into a $60M conflagration in Boston in 1871 was “epizootic”…. A disease that so disabled horses that they could not pull the fire wagons and only three self-propelled fire engines were available to fight the fires that destroyed the business district.

Contributed by:

Jerry Provencher

CEO/Executive General Adjuster

******

Trial by Fire: Junk Science

As every adjuster knows, finding the cause of a fire can help pursue subrogation or aid in the criminal investigation of those deemed responsible. However, with a more thorough knowledge of the science behind fires, what most of us were taught has radically changed. The following story is an example of how old science convicted an innocent man and how the new science helped free him.

What remained of the Gavitt’s home after a fire on March 9, 1985

********

For the 26 years David Lee Gavitt sat in a Michigan prison, he told everyone who would listen that he did not set the fire that killed his wife and two baby girls. Nearly 25 years would pass before some of the nation’s top fire experts would tell him they believed him.

“David’s case was the classic example of a bad arson case,” said John Lentini, a leading fire scientist who reviewed Gavitt’s case during the effort to get his conviction overturned. “People jumped to conclusions.”

Since Gavitt’s conviction in 1986, the field of fire investigation has been turned on its head. Scientists and investigators have discovered that features long considered signs of a fire intentionally set, in fact also occur during accidents. This has prompted the re-examination of arson convictions across the country that may have been based on bad science.

To read the story by NBC.com in its entirety, click here. 

Emerging Issues: Marijuana, Fires & Explosions

There is obviously a trend today to legalize the use of marijuana for medical treatments and to assist those undergoing chemotherapy treatments for cancer. These are positive steps for those involved. 

However, in Colorado and Washington, not only has the medical use been decriminalized by these states, but its general use has also been legalized. 

As a result of the legalization of marijuana for general use, users and purveyors are seeking stronger alternatives to smoking or ingesting the flowers, leaves and stems of the plant. One such alternative is the production of “hash oil” or “honey oil”. This alternative has raised great concern because it is produced by pouring butane through the marijuana. Yes, butane. As a result, there are new variety of coverage questions emerging that the article Marijuana, Fires & Explosions by Thomas Mallin, President & CEO of Property Loss Research Bureau, has summarized for all adjusters.