|
https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/961290598954266624
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:50 |
|
Baronjutter posted:My wife worked auto-claims in an insurance company. It's extremely stressful because you have people calling you immediately or shortly after accidents. Sure it generated a ton of entertaining stories but mostly it's just a high-stress call-centre type environment your wife needs to start a thread, these are great
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
![]() |
|
LifeSunDeath posted:your wife needs to start a thread, these are great Absolutely.
|
![]() |
|
video of the drive, after he somehow decides it's secure, please.
|
![]() |
|
Baronjutter posted:He also lost most of his friends, who decided to lie and say he was extremely drunk too. Things didn't go well for this guy. You can trust their testimony. They were drunk. ![]() Baronjutter posted:It's important to note that if roommate 2 had driven the truck, it would not have been covered by roommate 1's insurance as a theft since someone you live with or regularly allow use of your vehicle can't steal your truck according to the insurance policy. Obviously everyone fabricated this mystery person to help commit insurance fraud and criminal charges from the police chase. I believe this one was denied and roommate 1 had to go to court to try to get any money for his lost truck. That’s a bullshit policy. It’s like “a person can’t be raped by their spouse”. Obviously the level of harm is vastly different, but it’s the same broke logic. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Feb 7, 2018 |
![]() |
|
Platystemon posted:You can trust their testimony. In vino veritas
|
![]() |
|
Baronjutter posted:his official insurance statement describing the reason for the accident was just giant "I hosed UP" taking up the whole bottom of the page. It was cute, lessons were learned. I would love to see a (personal information redacted) picture of this and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Clearly I understand why no one should ever release it, even with every personally identifying thing removed, because the person who wrote it will see it and then get very, justifiably, legally angry.
|
![]() |
|
I really want her to go more into commercial insurance because that's where you get all the awesome industrial accident stories. Most of her stories were more just typical call centre stuff, it's not the claim that's awful it's just rude or weird or stupid people. A lovely home insurance story was a guy who had a claim about 5 years ago due to flooding in his basement. It was approved and they paid to have his finished basement basically gutted and rebuilt. A couple years later there was another case of flooding, not as bad, but another big claim. Then there was another huge flood claim. Then, once again, another flood claim and it finally came into her lap to approve it. A co-worker had blindly told the guy it would be approved but she actually did her job and looked into the file and the previous claims and moved to deny it. Why? The first flood was caused by the guy installing a washing machine himself in his basement. He didn't hook the pipe up right and it flooded his basement. The next claim was apparently caused by his washing machine again, this time a faulty part and he was advised to get it fixed. The 3rd flood was again caused by the same washing machine, the same faulty part that had still not been fixed, but the notes said that this time he had actually hired someone to fix it rather than fix it himself. And this 4th flood? The same problem from the same washing machine. And he still hadn't gotten it professional fixed as instructed, he said "oh I called a professional and he said it was probably this part so I did it myself to save $50" Why? Why with the tens of thousands of dollars spent on remediation did this guy not just get a new washing machine or get it properly fixed?????
|
![]() |
|
Baronjutter posted:I really want her to go more into commercial insurance because that's where you get all the awesome industrial accident stories. Most of her stories were more just typical call centre stuff, it's not the claim that's awful it's just rude or weird or stupid people. It's someone else's money, also he likes changing the look of his basement every few years.
|
![]() |
|
Platystemon posted:
Yeah I was pretty surprised when she was telling me. I sort of see the logic from the insurance angle though. A theft is a specific sort of claim and assumed specific sort of risks. But if your teenage son who sometimes drives the family car smashes it up you can't just declare it stolen because on that particular night you didn't give him permission. I forget all the specific terms, but if you live with someone and they gently caress up your car there's still absolutely insurance coverage for that, but it's not treated specifically as "theft" when a member of the household took it.
|
![]() |
|
Baronjutter posted:-Guy is driving home from the oil fields in his huge truck and decides to take a more off the beat route. He takes a corner too sharp and slides off the snowy road into a field. Because of this he notices a fire out in a clearing and drives over to investigate. He finds that another guy drove off the road in the exact same spot, tried to get out of the snow bank/trees by heading to the clearing but realized it was a lake and his truck broke through the ice. While this story is being told, the new guy's truck also falls through the ice. They spend the night trying to stay warm by the fire while getting their trucks out, both end up being total losses and only by chance being rescued by a 3rd person who spotted their fire. What a couple of hosiers. There was a road within sight that got at least occasional traffic where they could flag down the first vehicle that happens by, but these two einsteins stay next to broken ice instead?
|
![]() |
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah I was pretty surprised when she was telling me. I sort of see the logic from the insurance angle though. A theft is a specific sort of claim and assumed specific sort of risks. But if your teenage son who sometimes drives the family car smashes it up you can't just declare it stolen because on that particular night you didn't give him permission. I forget all the specific terms, but if you live with someone and they gently caress up your car there's still absolutely insurance coverage for that, but it's not treated specifically as "theft" when a member of the household took it. pretty shady to consider a housemate "a member of the household" in that sort of circumstance
|
![]() |
|
Facebook Aunt posted:What a couple of hosiers. There was a road within sight that got at least occasional traffic where they could flag down the first vehicle that happens by, but these two einsteins stay next to broken ice instead? Not to accuse anyone of anything, but these were both oil workers driving home at like 4am after a night on the town after payday using a bypass off the main road that had drunk driving checkpoints set up.
|
![]() |
|
starkebn posted:pretty shady to consider a housemate "a member of the household" in that sort of circumstance I think the relevant criteria would likely be 'do they have regular access to the keys?'
|
![]() |
|
Baronjutter posted:Not to accuse anyone of anything, but these were both oil workers driving home at like 4am after a night on the town after payday using a bypass off the main road that had drunk driving checkpoints set up. they need a show, drunken survivor men.
|
![]() |
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah I was pretty surprised when she was telling me. I sort of see the logic from the insurance angle though. A theft is a specific sort of claim and assumed specific sort of risks. But if your teenage son who sometimes drives the family car smashes it up you can't just declare it stolen because on that particular night you didn't give him permission. I forget all the specific terms, but if you live with someone and they gently caress up your car there's still absolutely insurance coverage for that, but it's not treated specifically as "theft" when a member of the household took it. I get that it could be difficult to prove theft if you frequently and casually loan a car to a person, but it shouldn’t be a blanket policy. Few people would knowingly loan their car to a drunk, for example. It’s unlikely that they really did loan their car out and changed their story after the crash. Maybe they could have secured the keys better and should be partially liable for that, but it’s still theft. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Feb 8, 2018 |
![]() |
|
![]()
|
![]() |
|
ExecuDork posted:Do you work emergency dispatch? I can't think of any other job that would involve frequently speaking with people seconds after a worst-day-of-your-life situation like a major car accident. I do work emergency dispatch actually. Not sure if there's a thread about it already, haven't thought to look honestly. It can be a rewarding job but also depressing because you lose a little bit of faith in humanity every day after hearing some of the absolutely dumb poo poo people do. One that pops into my head while typing that is a woman who impaled (maybe stabbed is a better word) herself with a clock while cleaning it. Baronjutter posted:I forget all the specific terms, but if you live with someone and they gently caress up your car there's still absolutely insurance coverage for that, but it's not treated specifically as "theft" when a member of the household took it. At our department we call it Unauthorized Control. Same as if you let someone borrow your car and then they didn't bring it back when they said they would. It's not exactly stolen but it ain't cool either. ChesterJT fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Feb 8, 2018 |
![]() |
|
Its gonna fall no mater what you do, why not just let it?
|
![]() |
|
Applesnots posted:Its gonna fall no mater what you do, why not just let it? Tell that to Pisa
|
![]() |
|
Applesnots posted:Its gonna fall no mater what you do, why not just let it? The science and art of Demolition is not that it falls, but in how it falls. The impact could damage underground structures, for example.
|
![]() |
|
Applesnots posted:Its gonna fall no mater what you do, why not just let it? there's people still inside and rescue work is ongoing
|
![]() |
|
thatbastardken posted:there's people still inside and rescue work is ongoing similarly: death will come for us all no matter what you do, so why not just let it?
|
![]() |
|
Arrhythmia posted:similarly: death will come for us all no matter what you do, so why not just let it? death appreciates it when people at least try
|
![]() |
|
thatbastardken posted:there's people still inside and rescue work is ongoing Wait, seriously? https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/earthquake-rocks-taiwan-tourist-city-idUSRTX4RSDD ![]()
|
![]() |
|
Here's another bit of awfulness. That is a 12 storey building. Count how many levels are intact. :\
|
![]() |
|
LifeSunDeath posted:your wife needs to start a thread, these are great I can contribute from both the auto and property side.
|
![]() |
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah I was pretty surprised when she was telling me. I sort of see the logic from the insurance angle though. A theft is a specific sort of claim and assumed specific sort of risks. But if your teenage son who sometimes drives the family car smashes it up you can't just declare it stolen because on that particular night you didn't give him permission. I forget all the specific terms, but if you live with someone and they gently caress up your car there's still absolutely insurance coverage for that, but it's not treated specifically as "theft" when a member of the household took it. It’s very difficult to demonstrate that a resident relative does not have permissive use of a vehicle. In the ‘roommate’ scenario: if the roommates have both driven the car, there’s a level of implied permissive use that can be difficult to prove off as theft. Typically, the theft is fraudulently claimed because a) the actual operator may lose their license and have their rates jacked up or b) if there was a great swath of carnage cut and the liability limits are low, the vehicle owner is facing the balance of the damage costs after the limits are exhausted. If your vehicle is used during the commission of a crime (such as cutting a swath of carnage after having been stolen), neither the owner nor the insurer are legally liable remedying said carnage.
|
![]() |
|
PainterofCrap posted:It’s very difficult to demonstrate that a resident relative does not have permissive use of a vehicle. I'm guessing that these people also go to the cops to try to get their housemate/buddy/relative charged for stealing their car because they think it'll bolster their insurance claim only to be told "LOL there's no way we could make the charges stick in court so we're not going to waste our time but maybe you can try suing them if you feel like it"
|
![]() |
|
Applesnots posted:
The beams obviously won't prevent the building from falling but they will prevent it from falling suddenly.
|
![]() |
|
https://twitter.com/bdbosley/status/951204875899232258
|
![]() |
|
Is that anything like a shpadoinkle day?
|
![]() |
|
huh i wonder what kind of a substance pentaborane is![]() oh
|
![]() |
|
Seems volatile.
|
![]() |
|
Prav posted:huh i wonder what kind of a substance pentaborane is I'm not sure Wikipedia is right. PubChem has the NFPA as 4-4-2. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/12027532#section=NFPA-Hazard-Classification&fullscreen=true
|
![]() |
|
Vargatron posted:Seems volatile. ![]()
|
![]() |
|
That's the rating for "move to another continent", right?
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:50 |
|
Mistle posted:The only problem is that people have been conditioned to think that the yellow is part of the green light and not the red light--instead of "okay traffic stops" people think "buzzer beater time before the red". Yellow means proceed with caution
|
![]() |