An amusing little story here, the owners of Noah’s Ark are suing for flood damage.
Yep.
A little Tee Hee might be justified there, eh?
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Owners of replica Noah’s Ark sue insurers for flood damage compensation[/perfectpullquote]Apparently the cubits were overcome by the cascades.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Ark Encounter is accusing its insurers and underwriters of acting in bad faith after refusing to pay the full cost of the damage suffered by the theme park as a result of heavy rain in 2017 and 2018.[/perfectpullquote]Sadly, it’s the theme park, not the Ark, which suffered the damage. So it’s not quite as amusing as at first sight.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] The 510-foot wooden ship, which was built on bedrock, appears to have emerged unscathed from the rainfall. However, the same cannot be said for the land supporting the structure or the road used by 2.2 million visitors a year. The company which owns the attraction has gone to court seeking $1 million to cover the cost of making good the damage suffered as a result of flooding. [/perfectpullquote]And if we think about it that would have been fair from Noah himself. The Ark got him through, sure, but there was indeed a certain amount of flood damage to the surrounds, no? Damage that had to be made good?
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
Dear Tim,
Non-life Insurance policies normally have an exclusion clause for "Acts of God" so Noah's original flood would not have led to any valid claims. What we have now is damage to the ground around a "replica ark" from torrential rain but not damage to the replica "Noah's Ark", despite it's inability to float - interesting!
To what extent torrential rain is regarded as an "Act of God" varies according to how exceptional it is and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but if I worked for the insurer I am sure that I should have double-checked my "Act of God" exclusion.
What stops Noah's carnivores eating Noah's herbivores? A more significant risk than an occasional flood I would think.
John Finnemore made precisely this point in last week's Souvenir Programme (BBC R4 2:30 in).
Did he suggest a solution?
"We're going to need a second ark."