United States Federal Government: This Should Not Happen

sear

sear

Administrator
Staff member
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has focused attention on the fossil fuel industry. AGW is so severe a danger private industry has taken the lead, leaving government behind. BUT !!

The EPA has found a new way to endanger us that makes matters orders of magnitude worse than we'd otherwise be.
Often with such alarming disclosures there's a "the other side of the story". Any idea what that might be?

The Environmental Protection Agency approved a component of boat fuel made from discarded plastic that the agency’s own risk formula determined was so hazardous, everyone exposed to the substance continually over a lifetime would be expected to develop cancer. Current and former EPA scientists said that threat level is unheard of. It is a million times higher than what the agency usually considers acceptable for new chemicals and six times worse than the risk of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking.

Federal law requires the EPA to conduct safety reviews before allowing new chemical products onto the market. If the agency finds that a substance causes unreasonable risk to health or the environment, the EPA is not allowed to approve it without first finding ways to reduce that risk.
But the agency did not do that in this case. Instead, the EPA decided its scientists were overstating the risks and gave Chevron the go-ahead to make the new boat fuel ingredient at its refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

www.propublica.org

EPA Approved a Fuel Ingredient Even Though It Could Cause Cancer in Virtually Every Person Exposed Over a Lifetime

An EPA document shows that a new Chevron fuel ingredient has a lifetime cancer risk more than 1 million times higher than what the agency usually finds acceptable — even greater than another Chevron fuel’s sky-high risk disclosed earlier this year.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org

Blame Biden?
Trying to kill off the boaters?
 
Re #1 - have to say that if I were still heading up an insurance company I'd exclude coverage for any claims related in any sense to this fuel (that includes the manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of the product - including fuels that include it). That's pretty much the only way to shut it down.

I'm sure Chevron could insure it into their own captive but that would still leave them on the hook for any claims.
 
Shiftless2 said:
Re #1 - have to say that if I were still heading up an insurance company I'd exclude coverage for any claims related in any sense to this fuel
Click to expand...
Sensible. BUT !!
Do government licensed insurance companies have the legal authority to unilaterally practice such discrimination? Reductio ad absurdum, if that, then wouldn't insurers also have the legal authority to not insure diesel-fueled automobiles (including the tractor-trailers essential to U.S. commerce)?

This story is madness. It tests credulity. It reminds me of a case a few decades ago, some enterprising businessmen tried to get rid of toxic waste by adding it to automotive fuel. Didn't work. They were caught. BUT !!
Now the EPA has gotten into the act. Why have they not been slammed for this?
 
Shiftless2 said:
Do they have the authority to deny coverage? Yes - they do it all the time.
Click to expand...
Surely, for ostensibly actuarial reasons. [translation: for legitimate insurance bidness reasons]

BUT !

I'm stretching here, but I got the impression for a civil indictment the plaintiff has to have "standing".
Either way, I understand why an insurer would prefer to not issue a life insurance policy to a suicidal obese alcoholic chain-smoker.
I don't recall any case where an insurer refused to issue a policy based on the source of fuel used in the vehicles of the enterprise. Perhaps they have more leeway than I thought.

- we'll see -
 
Insurance companies refuse to cover specific risks all the time.

It's not as simple as applying actuarial tables - "underwriting judgment" plays a part in cases like this. After all, it's a given that if 100% of people exposed to this material will develop cancer it's a given that lawsuits will arise. That's why I said claims arising out of the manufacture, sales, distribution, or use of the material (and that would impact their D&O coverage as well as the usual products and general liability policies.
 
Shiftless2 said:
it's a given that if 100% of people exposed to this material will develop cancer
Click to expand...
Not sure who to blame here S2, but I suspect bamboozle.
sear said:
"... the agency’s own risk formula determined was so hazardous, everyone exposed to the substance continually over a lifetime would be expected to develop cancer." propublica.org #1
Click to expand...
Who's to blame? The agency? Propublica? I'm sure it's carcinogenic. I think they could quantify the risk, the lethality more clearly.

Insurers don't make money not issuing policies. So the "bean counters" are on the job here.
 
sear said:
Insurers don't make money not issuing policies. So the "bean counters" are on the job here.
Click to expand...
They don't make money issuing policies where they are guaranteed to lose money either.

There are two ways for the insurer to address this.

One is to simply refuse to issue any policies to anyone involved with the manufacture, sale, distribution, of use of this substance. That's unlikely because it would involve a lot of entities - everyone from the manufacturer down to the marina that sells the fuel.

The second is to simply endorse every policy they issue to exclude coverage for anything related to the substance.
 
Shiftless2 said:
They don't make money issuing policies where they are guaranteed to lose money either.
Click to expand...
Thus the bean counting.
In this case (& perhaps most others) I don't have a problem with it,
unless the exclusions are in the small print, so that policy holders believe & have rational reason to believe they're insured, but are not.
I'd prefer an insurer not issue a policy than to issue the policy, but evade making good on it via loop-hole. It's a stacked deck.
 
It's the insured's responsibility to actually read the policy.

That said, in most cases the insured is dealing through a broker or agent - it's up to them to explain the policy to their client (that is, the insured). If they don't do so they can be sued and if they've misrepresented what the policy covers they'll be responsible for making good.
 
Shiftless2 said:
It's the insured's responsibility to actually read the policy.
Click to expand...
Indeed. That's about as well known as the fact that in practice, it's exceedingly rare. There's probably a name for it by now.
Shiftless2 said:
... a broker or agent - it's up to them to explain the policy to their client (that is, the insured).
Click to expand...
Your parenthetical summoned to mind the opposite case. Real estate salesmen & brokers may spend by far more time with the shoppers / buyers, compared to the sellers. Some shoppers & buyers mistake this to mean the salesman or broker are agents for the shopper / buyer. - nope - Real estate salesmen & brokers work for, represent the seller.
You now have me slightly suspicious of perverse incentive for insurance brokers & agents. Not that any evidence comes to mind. But I have no evidence that there isn't.
Shiftless2 said:
If they don't do so they can be sued and if they've misrepresented what the policy covers they'll be responsible for making good.
Click to expand...
More easily said than done. I've butted heads w/ insurers over automobile collision blame, trying to get the VA to pay a legitimate ER visit. Patient victory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top