A recent oil refinery explosion in Thailand got me thinking. Officials said that despite an anticipated closure of 3 months they were not worried about the financial impact because their insurance policy would fully cover it.

Possibly this is the business thinking behind the FOF strategy? If they spent millions of dollars trying to fix the problem at best they would have to sue the insurance companies to try to recover the costs. With FOF, any accidents, explosions, etc. that results in damage, business interruption will be covered under normal policies.

-- lanina (lanina1963@yahoo.com), December 13, 1999

Answers

I hope they've got better policies than mine. My buildings, contents and motor policies have specific Y2K exclusions, because Y2K is a "forseeable event".

That's why we prep, it's the only way to get insurance. It's also a damn sight cheaper than a paper policy, and EVEN IF WE'RE WRONG we get to use most of it anyway. It's a no loser.

Always remember that the real cost to national or global economies from loss of production is way way higher then the equivelant remediation dollar cost. Fix On Fail is NOT a good option.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), December 13, 1999.

In asmuch as insurance companies will be theplace to look to collect damages from failure, the insurance companies will in turn ask the companies for information on their testing of these systems. The way I see it, the insurance companies are in better shape legally, but lawyers are in best shape finacially.

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), December 13, 1999.