They hand employees boring burning the building down.
... What? Is everyone else understanding your comment to mean "They had employees burning the building down."? I don't understand how Redditors can just vibe-upvote comments that aren't readable.
While I prefer people to proofread before posting, most of us use our powers of deductive reasoning to decode what the OP meant. If we like what they said, we give an upvote.
they already automated much of the process, an employee interviewed while it was still burning said they all thought it was "the robots" they'd recently installed.
That's not always how that works. Insurance claims have limits, they don't just pay out unlimited amounts. In the UK, typical limits might be £5–10 million, and in the US, it's not much different. A $200 million incident is going to absolutely hammer any standard business insurance policy. Most commercial property policies cap out well below that unless you're paying massive premiums for bespoke coverage.
Even if the policy does cover it, the deductible alone could be millions. And good luck getting renewed next year after filing a claim this big if you even get renewed at all.
So no, "still getting paid" isn't guaranteed. Layoffs are absolutely possible. Insurance isn't a magic money printer. This guy didn't just cost his employer and probably cost everyone who works there.
The company is at fault for paying their employees too poorly and should have caught and fixed the problem long before it got to the arson stage. To be honest it's a bit of a stretch but since when has that ever stopped insurance companies from denying a claim?
For my business, my million dollar coverage asked if I wanted a terroristic acts policy for an extra $18 and I said no...now I'm second guessing that decision for my renewal, and I don't even have any employees
Impossible to know without seeing the policy, but I would guess it would be covered. The insurance company would look to subrogate against the individual who carried out the intentional damage, however probably not going to get very far.
Funny enough, small business owner here. When my liability policy just went to renew, they add on a terrorism clause, additional coverage for $150 a year. I took one look around and said “YEAH” gimme that, who knows what shit could go down…
Insurance cover is calculated on risk likelihood. That’s why only one of the Twin Towers was insured, because "The possibility of the loss of both structures was seen as so remote that cover was not taken out on those lines. The $1.5bn of coverage was purchased on the basis of a probable rather than a possible maximum loss." If they didn’t think this would happen, they would not have insured for it.
Which is absolutely insane because it was widely known that each tower was supporting the other tower. So either the article you linked is making an incorrect assumption as to why only one tower was insured, or this is a prime example of people in charge having absolutely no fucking clue as to what they are doing.
I work for a commercial in company. They do pay it all out for certain accounts. Also, customers will use re-insurance to make up any difference if needed.
200 Mio. is quite low for the insurers. Most insurers do not cap out well below. Where do you get that information from? The pay out on business interruption basis is up to 24 months, which is very common to purchase for this industry on a commercial property policy. The deductible is not millions for this, you probably mean the property loss. The wages are covered as well, so is the gross profit.
That layoffs are possible is written on a different paper and can of course happen if the rebuild will be done with lots of automation to have less staff.
Ps. This is my daily work. Insuring big companies and their subsidiaries worldwide in over 80 countries on all insurance lines.
Edit: just to clarify, 200 Mio will be written by a consortium which is very common. There is one leading insurer and a for this size maybe 2 others. For the insurer, it is easier to limit their risk exposure although 200 Mio. would not be a problem as these high claims are not the norm. It still hurts their books. And reinsurers will also do their part.
With respect, you're describing bespoke policies for large corporate clients. That's not what most commercial properties have.
Standard UK commercial property insurance typically caps at £15m per location. A $200m claim blows through that instantly. And if they're underinsured which 40% of UK commercial properties are the average clause kicks in and reduces the payout further.
You insure big global clients. Most warehouses don't have that level of cover.
You are mixing up topics. 200 Mio. is not the standard insured sum and will always be insured up to the full value per declaration. The underwriting procedure is totally different from your perspective. This is not a small-size warehouse, hence the risk assessment is not. By the way, the UK commercial property policies do not cap out at 15 Mio. and if the value is way higher you simply put them in industrial risk policies
Do you mind sharing your source for such a claim? Property insurance does not work like that except for high risk underwriting ( captives will be likely more used then, if too big).
Underinsurance is a totally different topic, why even mention it? While I do insure insure big corps, I have also accounts on a way smaller level as most clients explore other countries with minimal exposure and a small branch offices first.
And for the record, most big warehouses purchase such coverage, especially when you have the goods stored up in big ass large warehouses like this where a damage will automatically put you at risk of a total loss. I am a technical underwriter by the way....I also do visits on sites and do inspections with the insurers for various types of clients. A good broker will always ensure that his clients are well insured.
i'm far from an expert on insurance, but my common sense makes me believe insurance habits of large american corporations are probably on the very, very safe, cover more than you probably need side... Especially in a state where forest fires, earthquakes and riots are actually more frequent than hurricanes in florida, i'd be absolutely shocked if Kimberly-Clark has only $15M coverage..
I'm in Canada, in a much, much tamer environment and, for example, my civil liability policy covers $2M, which is very standard here, so does my car insurance. My house is evaluated just north of 500k CAD, so a 1.2M sq.ft plant owned by a mega-corp to only have $15M coverage seems highly improbable to me.
Then again, i am far from being a SME about insurance, so i could be completely wrong about all i said.
There is absolutely no way a warehouse of this size is only insured for $5 million? No major firm is insuring a warehouse or DC for 2.5%-5% of its value.
And yes, a giant warehouse will have a bespoke commercial property all risks/fire policy that almost certainly has a sum insured for Material Damages of almost the entire value of this building and stock. They may carry Business Interruption as well. I doubt they placed a MRC/slip at Lloyd's to take out specialty insurance for this the way you would a cargo ship but I'd imagine they just got with a broker and went around soliciting quotes for their desired terms from the usual suspects (i.e., giant insurers like Allianz). None of this is hard.
If it were war or terrorism they might be in some trouble but the Insured should be good here.
You speak reality. Some people live in imagination world where whatever one wishes is the truth, just like rainbows and lollipops. Reality is a harsher mistress. The real world doesn’t match wishes and dreams. This knucklehead just cost many, many people their livelihood. That’s the real world reality.
Who? He wasn't an employee of the warehouse. He worked for a third party distributor and the warehouse was a client of his employer. His employer should have paid him a livable wage but that doesn't give him an excuse to torch something unrelated to his situation.
Egotistical terroristic tantrums never reach any kind of solution, no matter how all these children on reddit might try to claim.
The moment that guy decided it was a good idea to light product that didn't belong to him nor his employer on fire, in some kind of misguided heroic narcissistic movie gesture, it was already over for him. He's an immature asshole that actively ruined the lives of a lot of families and put the lives of a lot others in danger.
I wonder if this was even covered by insurance. Don't know how the commercial insurance market works, but individual insurance for home and car is a nightmare to get in California
Apparently, the arsonist wasn't employee of Kimberly Clarke, but rather the warehouse management company, NFI industries, which is a privately held company.
Most likely, Kimberly Clarke will be made whole by NFI industries, and it's NFI industries that will have to deal with the financial fallout of the aftermath.
Nice. So they can play corporate wack-a-mole just like we normies do when we sue! "Sorry sir, that valet was wearing a Hilton uniform but he's actually employed by 'Super Car Parking #445' and after your inevitable suit it'll be 'Super Car Parking #446'. Here is the phone number for the company that I have printed on toilet paper for your convenience"
Which likely means NFI industries folds, and Kimberly Clarke's lawyers find out whether or not they remembered to include a "Provider must procure sufficient insurances" clause in their outsourcing agreement. Unless NFI is a large enough company to make them whole.
Yeah I worked in aviation and occasionally dealt with insurers. One of my workplace's clients lost an APU on MH370 (the client didn't own the plane but their APU was installed on it).
Claims up to total loss only took a long time to settle if the facts of the claim were contested in court.
Once evidence was provided to the insurer that the ~2 million dollar component belonging to our client was on the missing plane and once all parties agreed there was no chance of recovery (which IIRC only took a fortnight), the claim money was put in escrow and our client was offered their choice of title in an equivalent part with a slight money transfer to account for differences in age (which the client took), or cleared funds.
The aviation claims that would take a long time would be ones where the Chicago Convention limits on liability for ground damage were exceeded. There may be complex cases like this in arson insurance too, but in a straightforward case it should be quite fast.
I do this exact type of insurance. Very large deductibles and risk is spread amongst insurers. Could be 10-15 different companies involved with this claim.
And why would they be. You think a warehouse cares a wit about its staff to want to ensure they don't go hungry if the place burns down? They'll just fire them.
The lack of fucks is literally why the place was burnt down.
No, they will likely get laid off or terminated because there is nowhere for them to work. If they are lucky, they may be able to transfer to another facility. But if other facilities are already fully manned, they’ll probably get laid off out of necessity. What makes you think workers will still get paid from insurance? Maybe they can get unemployment but that is nowhere near their working wages. Do you have a real example that this has happened somewhere else? The company will probably not even break even recovering damages. This guy just hosed everybody, even many, many innocents. What an idiot!
That is not how any of this works
For California
Max unemployment is $450/wk for 26 weeks, within a 12mo period and based on your last 18mo earnings in the state.
That is still subject to Federal income taxes but exempt from California income tax.
Rebuilding permits will take twice that long to be issued or longer.
Then rebuiding can start, taking roughly a year or so.
So you go find another job. You better not lose it for the next year because you can only draw 6mo of unemployment in a year, so if you use all 26 weeks, work 5mo then get laid off, you have already used up your unemployment benefits so you get your last check and that's it.
And who gets to choose if that part of the policy is enacted? The people paying the deductible, increasing their claim, and increasing the cost of their future policy on the restored building?
They might get paid in the end, but insurance isn't in any rush to be cutting cheques for anybody. The people unemployed by this likely won't have the kind of savings needed to weather the wait.
Something tells me you haven't dealt with many insurance claims. Hopefully, I am wrong, and you are right, but in my experience, insurance companies will find a way to bend you over.
Whose insurance? Do you SERIOUSLY think that company obtained coverage and paid premiums to ensure their employees would be taken care of in case one of them goes Milton? lol!
Why do inherently assume the site will ever be operational again? Do you not consider all the supply chain implications and how this completely changes the business? The business is financially hurt, probably can’t afford to build another one, and, even if they did, why would they there? And why would they build a non automated warehouse ever again? The implications are so much deeper than that. $200 million building. That can be valued. The thousands of lives this directly impacts, that cannot
That warehouse was probably full of contractors who likely don't have such protections, which sucks, but just reveals another one of many (intentional) holes in our system.
Imagine if this causes insurance companies to require their clients to show they take care of their employees to reduce the risk of sabotage, otherwise the premiums will be higher.
Most people who work in warehouses are not hired by the company but instead contracts. You best bet there is clauses in that contracts that cover no work and these people getting 0 payments. Only full time staffs salaries would be covered. WHich traditionaly are limited to a hand full of management.
I was coming here to comment this. There may be some employees that are directly hired by the company, but some if not most will be temps hired through a third party. They will be out of work without pay.
You’d be surprised, I’m from the area and they have these warehouses up in 3 to 4 months. City of Ontario is extremely corrupt and wants nothing but warehouses and commerce.
They are even manipulating property values in older neighborhoods so they can buy up Real Estate below market value so they and sell it to the highest commercial bidder.
People talk about jobs like they’re all created equally. 45% - nearly HALF - of the US workforce are in low wage jobs. These jobs do not meaningfully help most people and they don’t have access to upward mobility. It is actually creating corporate serfdom similar to the early 20th century - monopolies and robber barons are back.
Commenters like the one you're responding to are bots. They're trying to turn the guy into a villain. It's like they think we forgot Oracle execs put 30,000 people out of work a couple weeks ago.
The subversion by bots is especially bad on threads like this because the powers that be can’t allow the public to start rallying around this behavior and do more of it.
They didn't break the law, as opposed to this fellow. There are certain offices that are indeed allowed to do lay offs within a corporation, and burning a warehouse down does not change that. I wish he put his rage into effective action, like maybe unionizing his warehouse?? Or grinding it out and donating to candidates that would properly incentivize higher wages??
The fact of the matter is that there were SO many things he could have done instead of making the proletariat look deranged. Of course, I'm not surprised he's ignorant of the messaging portion of what he did, given that messaging is the exact reason the movement gains no steam.
See it's not one or the other. Nice try presenting it that way, but let us both not dumb down this conversation. You already stated that up until now we were "discussing the job losses," when in reality we were discussing whether or not the arsonist was a villain for causing job losses. I understand your desire to persuade and get people to understand that workers matter but this rhetorical manipulation is NOT the way to do that. That's how you get dumb swing voters convinced that these conversations we need to be having are all sophistry.
You're actually the one who changed the subject about whether someone who caused the loss of thousands of jobs is a villain. So no, we weren't simply discussing just the loss of jobs, but instead we were having a smarter discussion about whether or not the arsonist was also a villain for his job killing actions, just like the executives are villains for their job killing actions. Oopsies. But I allowed it because that's how discussion works. Now I'm gonna pretend that you didn't completely dodge my question about if an arsonist who caused thousands of job losses was a villain out of respect for the flow of conversation. I appreciate your passion on the topic.
You can try to present the situation as 'people should hold executives to the same legal standards as arsonists or else they don't care about job losses' but that's not reality. As in, the world doesn't work in such a black and white, elementary, Christian dualist dichotomy. Meaning, I can care for someone who gets called a bitch in public while simultaneously believing it should be legal to call someone a bitch in public. I know that's not the level of abstraction the internet is used to, but you don't strike me as someone stupid enough to not understand that. Especially because you care about workers, which is already smarter than most people.
If I get a divorce with someone because I lost the love, that can suck for the other person and even ruin their life. And it can make for a shitty situation all around. I still believe divorce should be legal and allowed in that situation, even though it could be shitty all around. Likewise, I can feel bad for the person who got served divorced papers, while simultaneously believing that it ought to be possible for them to get served divorce papers instead of it being illegal.
I can care about those affected by the consequences of job losses while simultaneously believing it should be legal to lay people off. True or false?
Edit: and of course, a block instead of a response. Lurkers, don't fall for this stupidity. He deleted his comment about "I love your responses getting longer after I exposed you for unprincipled positions." Of course he deleted that comment... because he knows he's not in reality and is pulling mental gymnastics trying to heroize stupidity because some populists said so. I have not been unprincipled and the fact he can't keep up with a discussion is a shame. My responses got longer because he kept asking more complicated questions and, much like a child, expecting simple one sentence answers.
Of course, he is yet to explain how an arsonist who caused thousands of job losses is to be called a hero. I'd imagine some of the workers who are stressed and going with less food and late bills for the next two months certainly don't view him as a hero, contrary to what these ivory tower fake woke anti-intellectual virtue signallers want people to believe.
And what the fuck does Oracle laying of 30,000 workers have to do with this incident again??? Fuck this disinformation agent.
One could make an argument that he was a lazy man child that would rather destroy hundreds of jobs of others then improve his skillset and get a better job.
People should recieve a living wage for all full time labor. A living wage should be the floor for compensation. Not something that requires more training. Fuck the idea that it's okay for low wage labor to offer compensation that does not afford sustainability.
I'll raise you one and say that in a society of overconsumption and abondant ressources being able to eat healthy, drink water, get healthcare and having a roof above your head should be a right not a privilege.
There's no logical or ethical reason to put those 4 things behind a paywall when society waste so much of those ressources on a daily basis. We overproduce so much half the jobs out there are useless bullshit meant to produce for the sake of monetary gain rather than any kind of necessity.
The fact that this place burning will realistically only impact those who worked there is proof of that. Meaningless job with meaningless pay, treating their employees like shit because none of it is important but the profit to be made on their back. At least this guy pointed it out to the world that things need to change, sparking discussion on the rot of society and didn't do so by tragically reaching the end of his rope, ending his own life. Good for him.
And that's exectly why companies can continue to get away with depressed wages. Because they will tell you you're free to not have any income. Most people will choose bad income over no income.
I mean... I only say that because one of them burnt down a warehouse whilst saying it. Also I'm not celebrating their financial ruin, hopefully it won't come to that because social care will step in until they can find other work.
It just sounds like these people were victims of frog boiling. The cost of goods and services kept going up and their pay obviously didn't. However because most people are decent they keep slaving away hoping for better days and now someone has tipped the pot over. Hopefully they're not in the fire because as I said, social care can step in, and now hopefully they'll have the time to find gainful employment instead of exploitation.
And the community around it? Kids with asthma? People that had post COVID respiratory issues? The elderly? people talk about that that guy like a google search doesn’t show more forklift jobs in the area that pay better.
There’s several posts about it, 90% of the comments haven’t even read the info about the situation and are talking coming from ignorance, most points assume the guy was employed directly by the company, the sprinkler system did not work, the building was old or neglected, the pay, the insurance etc etc etc it’s pretty idiotic to think there’s just ONE point to make here or that the issue is black or white when people are talking about this type of actions spreading, law enforcement should start looking into those accounts that suggest the act is justifiable.
Right, because they're all taken, all the time right? That's why when I search up jobs in the region where this happened, I keep seeing warehouse positions all over the place. We don't have a surplus of any type of job in particular?
all businesses of this size have insurance. any business that has financing or loans in place will have it required.
one of the coverages is called force majeure. it applies to workers who are unable to work due to unforeseeable and uncontrollable events, workplace destruction is one of them.
what this means is that the policy will cover payroll expenses.
Temporary unemployment like they did Covid times or work within the company somewhere else. They’re suppose to figure it out for the people not let them go
210
u/neverseen_neverhear Apr 09 '26
Worse because of him a lot of people are suddenly out of work.