Posted on 11/07/2013 9:34:16 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
Edited on 11/07/2013 9:36:43 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
PHOENIX - A man's house burned to the ground, but that wasn't his only shock -- because two weeks later, he received a bill for almost $20,000 from the private fire department that tried to fight it.
One state lawmaker says fire coverage in rural areas of Arizona is a mess and he says there needs to be oversight.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxphoenix.com ...
Give ma an accounting that creates a $20k bill.
Can we find out if the company has an hourly rate, call out fee or man hour charge?
HAHA, now I like that, right there!
They probably can if the homeowner failed to order them to stop—he in essence adopted the contract.
That’s what I was after before another Freeper accused me of being stupid.
From a business perspective:
10 men total at maybe 4 hours, 40 man-hours at maybe $30/hour = $1200.
2 vehicles at $250/hour times 8 total hours = $4000.
$5200.
Maybe I’m just way off base on the vehicle cost.
Or they sent out more resources than I’d opine is necessary.
” You’ll upset the libertarians here with remarks like that.”
A TRUE Libertarian would argue that taxes are paid in many ways and for the government to sanction private companies to provide public services at additional cost is taxation without representation.
I don't know if there is a national protocol, but I know there are local requirements for equipment for accidents, rescue and fire calls.
True story.
We were given a house to train in, set on fire and put out. I’s called an acquired structure. Much more realistic to put out a training fire in an acquired structure than in a “burn building”. However, the EPA sent us letters stating that if we did not stop burning this building we would be fined.
So if Mr. Stupid homeowner wants to sue the fire co for putting out his house without his permission, I expect the EPA will make his $20K bill (which he probably will not pay anyway) look like chump change. Would it not at that point also look like an intentional fire? I think it’s called arson.
That question wasn't asked, but it is important. I just dealt with a general contractor, and he said his margin was 35% Since it is reasonable to assume that they would be in the same general business (except putting out fires rather than rebuilding) this seems a reasonable margin to me. If you add yo their expenses then multiply by 1.35 would you come up with $20k? I suspect you would come up with something less than $20k
Your reply in post #22 has done nothing to refute my contention that he thought he had insurance, instead of your original contention that he intentionally did not buy the insurance because he didn't want to pay for the service.
One of us is dumb. Fire protection is not insurance. Fire protection is someone who shows up at the property and puts out the fire (firefighters). Fire insurance compensates the homeowner for any loss that the fire dept doesn’t save.
My guess, based on years of experience in the fire service is that this particular homeowner doesn’t have fire insurance. Why? because homeowners or renters who don’t have fire insurance many times try to blame their loss or a bill for service on the firemen in hopes of being compensated or forgiven for their lack of responsibility.
Part of being a responsible adult is knowing what options are available to you when/if you need massive amounts of water applied under teemendous water pressure to any or all parts of your home at any time day or night.
The existence of a local firehouse with all the red trucks does not mean that the controling local government has contracted with said firehouse to put out fires within it’s juristiction. It is up to the local government to provide that service, either by establishing a fire dept or contracting the services of another fire dept/company. Simply being a “tax payer” does not automatically mean you have fire protection.
A couple of years ago I fell through a living room floor putting out a fire. The cost to get me back in action would have eaten up all of this particular homeowners bill of $20K and more. In my opinion, the undeserved negative press that especally volunteer fire outfits that offer fire protection using subscriptions for people who live in areas that don’t provide there own fire service will become extinct in the near future. It is not worth the hassle.
FYI, there are protocols for EVERYTHING in the fire service. As far as justifying the $20K bill, that is not my problem, it is between the homeowner and the fire company.
As I have said, most likely the fire company will accept whatever payment the insurance company offers to pay as homeowner insurance rates are based in part on the ISO rating of the property. In this case there is no fire protection, so that homeowner will have the highest possible ISO rating. However, ISO ratings mean nothing to homeowners that don’t for whatever reason have homeowners insurance.
I know, I was a VFF for 15 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.