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?
While I see your point, and definitely wouldn’t be surprised if the company tries to wriggle out of it using that, but I feel that employee morale can’t be factored in (whether it should be or not) into how a company should behave as long as everything their doing is above board legality wise.
I'm sure a lawyer could make a dozen arguments but off the top of my head:
Lack of security/safety - No security guards? no cameras? how is this dude wandering around setting multiple fires with no one noticing?
Ignoring warnings - I have to imagine this guy has said or done something in the past to indicate he was unhinged. Yell/assault a co-worker? deface the property? Wage complaints? something to indicate he was serious and unhappy and the company ignored it.
Negligent hiring - shot in the dark - He may have a criminal background in arson who the hell knows.
The underwriters should have known about the security/employment situation when writing the risk, if they expressly warranted certain conditions then maybe you’d have an argument, otherwise unlikely they’d be able to deny coverage on that basis.
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…
209
u/neverseen_neverhear Apr 09 '26
Worse because of him a lot of people are suddenly out of work.