The New Republic

The problem with the firefighters accepting payment on the spot is that somebody had to pay for the infrastructure, equipment and training for the firefighters up front, else there would be none. Cranick chose not to, so, really, its his tough luck, the dope. The risk taken by those paying is that they will pay all their lives and never collect. This is a good risk, since the alternative is to be Cranick-ed. But without their acceptance of risk, the fire department doesn't exist. It is the existence of and willingness of people to pay for this insurance that allows the insurer (the FD, in this case) to both exist and pay off the policy. A similar need to choose between known up front costs and undefined long term benefits is what makes for a rational insurance market. Jonathan, there is no free lunch, and a "mandate" is just coercion for (insert name here)'s definition of the public good. That being said, thanks for picking up on and sharing this story. Great stuff.

- ds111

October 5, 2010 at 3:13pm

I don't disagree that they should have accepted payment, but if they had it certainly shouldn't have been the $75 that other residents paid each year, even if the FD was never called out. The majority of the cost of the FD is in simply existing as an available service and gets incurred no matter what happens throughout the year; each response certainly has a particular additional cost associated with it. So they'd have to divide the average yearly cost by the average number of calls. And this would, of course, have to be paid before any subsequent services are rendered. But God forbid anyone is forced to pay into a service like fire protection against their will, we might wake up with closets full of brown shirts...

but yeah, I have no sympathy for this yutz; he made his choice, and now he has no choice but to live with the consequences.

- GSpinks

October 5, 2010 at 3:57pm

So here's my question: Suppose Cranick's 11-year-old daughter and her best friend were trapped in the burning house. Should the firefighters be allowed to sit there, and be idle spectators to a burning house with two 11-year-old girls just because an irresponsible Cranick decided not to pay his fees?

- jimbomoron

October 5, 2010 at 4:06pm

Let's take a hypothetical. Suppose it costs $500 per year to insure a car. Suppose further that someone who opts not to carry insurance gets into an accident that causes $5000 of damage to his car. Suppose that this person then takes his car to the shop and offers to pay the $5000 to perform the repairs and the shop says "tough luck, you don't have insurance." Other than the general infrastructure support for the fire department, which can be addressed by adding an overhead charge, that is the case here. If the consequence of not paying for fire coverage is that a lien for the cost of response plus overhead is placed against you in the event you need fire service, with sufficient priority placed on the lien, then the cost responding to nonsubscribers would disappear. That said, it is still better to force everyone to subscribe.

- sighthnd

October 5, 2010 at 5:20pm

How come no one has said anything about emergency room care when discussing this issue? If one does not have health insurance and goes to the emergency room they still get treated. Are we all going to advocate that they should be thrown out on their ass now in order to appease our sense of libertarian fairness? Furthermore, the moral question here that frankly makes me disappointed in the rest of the American people is that they don't seem to have any problem with a group of trained professionals capable of putting out said fire and just watching it burn. I would maintain that they have a moral responsibility to put out the fire just as the doctor has a moral responsibility to treat the uninsured patient and I have a moral responsibility to save the infant drowning in the pool.

- DocStrange

October 5, 2010 at 7:35pm

ds111, jimbomoron and GSpinks are all right: assuming no lives are involved, let it burn. Libertarianism sounds good until something bad happens to you. Indeed, a true libertarian who wished only to be left in peace to live by dint of his gumption and hard work would have already dug a well and attached a pump so he could put the fire out himself. Likely as not, he would have lit a cigar before putting out the blaze. Of course all that would cost a whole lot more than $75... but gosh darn it, freedom has no price!

- theomur

October 5, 2010 at 7:37pm

Why are we making a judgment on the issue based on the supposed philosophical bent of the guy? I'm willing to bet that he had at least a few libertarian instincts knocked out of him as a result of this, and I think that would have happened whether they saved his house or not. For the people who have no sympathy for him - put yourself in his shoes and then say the same thing. Seriously, get a fucking Hippocratic Oath for essential services already.

- NR409654

October 5, 2010 at 9:46pm

I have apparently become too senile to comprehend what this story has to do with libertarians. Cranick espoused no anti-government or rugged self-determination sentiments in the film clip. Nor did he suggest that he could not afford to pay the fee or that the fee was unreasonable. He simply deadpanned that he thought they would provide fire services even though he didn't pay the fee. He is a free-rider who guessed wrong. Period.

- lsernoff

October 5, 2010 at 11:46pm

I do feel sympathy for the guy, but when all is said and done there is no way the Fire Department could accept $75 to put the fire out. I'm sure they hate the stupid opt in policy for fire protection, and letting this guy pay after a fire started would just encourage everyone in town to not pay until their house is on fire (and I'm sure the $75/house price structure is based on most people paying but never having a house on fire). Even charging him the cost of the response would have the same effect. Even worse, the people who would decide to just pay $75 to put out the fire wouldn't even see themselves as gaming the system, they would convince themselves that it only cost $75 to put out a fire. What really interests me is all of the issues that cascade out of this town's policy: - What insurer in their right minds would offer home owner's insurance to someone who doesn't pay for fire coverage? I got a discount on my home owner's insurance by living 1/4 mile from a fire station - did this guy have to pay extra? - What does the Fire Department do if his house burning is having an impact on adjacent properties that have paid the $75 fee? - What happens if you are renting from someone who doesn't pay the $75? - If raising the property tax by 13 cents covers the town does that mean that roughly only 1 in 400 properties opted in for fire coverage?!?!

- Attrill

October 6, 2010 at 12:04am

Attrill: Even charging him the cost of the response would have the same effect. I fail to see how that is so. Your argument makes as much sense as claiming that allowing someone to go to a body shop after an accident and pay cash for a repair job would encourage people not to buy comprehensive auto insurance until they get into an accident. Even if it did have that effect, so what? Suppose the fire department had the following business model: instead of charging an annual subscription fee, the department charged a fee for service. That is, every time a call went out, the recipient of fire service would be charged a fee sufficient to cover the department's response cost. Would that not be viable and should people not have such an option? Now suppose an outside company offers insurance policies that would pay the service cost on behalf of policy-holders when needed. Now if the fire department sells the insurance policies itself, you have the business model here, except that there's no fee for service option.

- sighthnd

October 6, 2010 at 9:15am

According to press reports, at least three animals perished in the fire. If nothing else, allowing a living creature to die through indifference is deeply immoral. Certainly un-Christian. What's more, there is no way the firefighters could have been sure that no human being was trapped inside the building without taking steps to secure potential occupants, and taking those steps would have required the firefighters to fight the fire in order to achieve their own safe access to and egress from the building. The question of the payment of fees is beside the point when lives are at stake: any person whose value system is not to some extent evil would do what he can to fight the fire - as family members and some neighbors did with garden hoses - and then let the bureaucrats and lawyers sort out who owes what to whom. Most disturbing of all in various press reports are the locals who forgive the firefighters on the scene on the grounds that they were just obeying policy or following orders. Excuses we've heard before, and the need to make that particular excuse should signal the presence of a grave moral crisis in this event.

- rhubarbs

October 6, 2010 at 10:33am

"I fail to see how that is so. Your argument makes as much sense as claiming that allowing someone to go to a body shop after an accident and pay cash for a repair job would encourage people not to buy comprehensive auto insurance until they get into an accident." That is a false analogy - going to an auto repair shop would be like rebuilding your house, not saving it from being destroyed in the first place. The Fire Department is much more like an insurance policy, not a repair service. The reason it discourages people from paying is that most houses don't catch on fire. If you also the option of paying for the service only if you need it people will wait until their houses catch fire. Since the number of fires that occur each year can vary widely it becomes very difficult to consistently fund a fire department, and . There are also other issues - what if a brush fire is burning in the woods, or an abandonded building is on fire and it will eventually threaten houses? Do you let it burn? If not, who pays to put that out? What happens when someone fails/is unable to pay the fee after the fire is out (the son of this family had done this before, which was part of why they let the fire burn). Fire Departments started out as pay services in the 1700's and the approach was a failure. By tying funding for a department to the number of times the service is needed you incentivize the department to create a greater need for their services. That is exactly what happened with private fire departments, they frequently started fires in order to ensure their survival.

- Attrill

October 6, 2010 at 12:23pm

sighthnd, the point you skipped over is that whole "payment is due at the time services are rendered". You mention about placing a lien against a person until they've paid their bill, but liens and IOUs don't pay the bills of the fire station, or the salaries of firefighters trying to put food on their tables, and can be dissolved in bankruptcy. And if you did skip on the car insurance and tried to purchase car insurance after racking up $5k in damage to your car, they wouldn't pay a single dime of those repairs; and the mechanics won't give you your car back until you've paid them $5k and the payment has gone through. The point of need is effectively a singular instance, either you have the coverage before that point, or you don't.

Rhubs, I don't necessarily disagree with your points on moral hazard, especially as it pertains to the loss of life. It's always sad when someone must pay with their life for the poor choices of another. But it's their town, they passed the laws and set up their social contract the way they wanted it, the way they felt was "best" and provided the greatest amount of justice/fairness/whatever. I certainly have opinions about what happened and the town in which it was able to happen, but at the end of the day I mostly just feel bad for his pets (I heard about that on the radio this morning).

- GSpinks

October 6, 2010 at 12:46pm

What if a child or other individual had been trapped in the fire? Would the firefighters be justified, because of an overlooked $75 fee, in not trying to put out the fire and save that individual?

- esmense

October 6, 2010 at 1:15pm

GSpinks, so the house is burned down, has no value, and they will now collect far, far less in property and school taxes than they otherwise would have since it is going to be quite a while before another house is built in its place. All these people are deranged idiots. All of those firemen just upped their own taxes by letting it burn down. What a victory for them.

- blackton

October 6, 2010 at 1:34pm

A few things to clarify what the situation is there - This is not the county's fire department. It it the Fire Department of the city of South Fulton (so there is no tax loss to South Fulton). County residents in unincorporated areas have repeatedly voted down taxes to pay for a County Fire Department. They have repeatedly chosen NOT to have a fire department. If someone does want fire protection South Fulton will provide it to homeowners for a $75 fee. The homeowner in this case decided he didn't want coverage, he said "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong.". If all the towns around yours eliminated their fire departments to lower their taxes what responsibility would your town's fire department have for those towns? Would you pay higher taxes to provide fire protection for those towns around you? The FD does have a policy of responding to any fires where life is at risk - whether the fee was paid or not. They also had responded once to a fire this family suffered, put out the fire, and charged $75. The $75 for that fire was never paid, even after repeated collection attempts. Finally, there is a very good reason why they would not put out this specific fire. This is a rural area with no fire hydrants, all of the water is in the truck and once it's gone it's gone. The firefighters decided they didn't have enough water to put out the fire at the deadbeat's house and also protect the house of the guy who had paid, so they let the deadbeat's house burn.

- Attrill

October 6, 2010 at 3:13pm

C'mon, Man! There are certain basic things government ought to do and people out to be coerced into paying for government to do beyond national defense and post roads. Isn't it appalling that intelligent, thoughtful conservative commentators can see this incident as anything other than a horrific example of what happens when the iron rules of market capitalism are applied mercilessly? Do we really intend to tolerate such speculation? Shall we resuscitate the debate over eugenics?

- Mikelawyr22

October 6, 2010 at 3:19pm

esmense, the fee wasn't "overlooked", Captain Wonderful made a deliberate decision to opt out of fire coverage. Animals are people too, and 3 pets died. It's sad. But "Justified" is a relative term; in their town, Them's The Rules. If anything, I'm amused; no need for counterfactuals or theoreticals in this argument. He was probably grovelling, and crying, thinking about his pets getting burned alive; it's so rare to get to witness someone actually sleep in the bed they made in such a dramatic fashion.
blackton, yeah I know. I think your assessment of the ramifications is spot on. I think this is a case-and-point rebuttal of the whole notion of governance by free market & service fee. But can we not let them continue to elect their own local government and continue to legislate as they see fit?

- GSpinks

October 6, 2010 at 3:47pm

Mikelawyr, if you want to start down the slope of coercion, forget eugenics, why not just do away with voting all together. I mean, people are obviously too stupid to act in their own best interest, why give them the option of electing a government official at any level? Just set up some sort of test for fitness for office or some such, maybe have incumbents appoint their successors? And why let people choose how many children to have, or what to eat, or anything that we can know objectively there are good and bad choices?

- GSpinks

October 6, 2010 at 4:12pm

GSpinks, I hear ya! We're all on the Road to Serfdom (or is that the Long March to Serfdom?) once we let government move a millimeter in the direction of so-called "general welfare." We have to let each individual be responsible for every conceivable (and inconceivable!) consequence of every action he or she may take. If there is even one choice a civilized society is justified in removing from the ambit human fallibility, all choices must be.

- Mikelawyr22

October 6, 2010 at 5:00pm

The one thing the conservatives (not necessarily the libertarians, or not all of them) always fudge in this debate is whether people ought generally to be free of enforced payment for government services they don't want. If I strongly disagree with the use of our armed forces in a particular conflict, e.g. Iraq, should I be able to withhold that segment of my tax that covers defense and miltary spending? The "Don't be stupid!" response that greeted me back when I was a snotty kid in the Vietnam days seems to be viewed with great hostility now that it's the conservatives who complain their taxes are being wasted on stuff they don't like.

- ironyroad

October 6, 2010 at 5:18pm

Mikelawyr22, God forbid we do something unconscionable like forming a government and relinquishing our rights and freedoms to that government in exchange for something resembling a service we should be providing for ourselves, like free markets, or fire protection or armies. How can a market be free if it is governed by government, then its just a slave to the will of the people...wow, ok, I have to stop, this is actually giving me a headache.

- GSpinks

October 6, 2010 at 6:16pm

Attrill, so South Fulton ain't losing any taxes, I am sure they can sleep well tonight then and will not feel the slightest bit of shame when they show up a church praising Jeebus. The guy is paying taxes somewhere, so it would have been in the best interest of the place he is paying taxes to assess the $75 value as part of the property taxes and then they could forward it to South Fulton. And something tells me if there were some kind of massive forest fire or some kind of natural disaster the town of South Fulton would have their hands out for Gov't aid right quick. And, of course, we will aid them.

- blackton

October 6, 2010 at 6:27pm

As usual, libertarianism only works with a hefty amount of, well, lying to oneself. After all, wouldn't a TRUE libertarian fire department only charge its customers as needed? Isn't charging a yearly fee flying in the face of the whole libertarian idea? By the sweat of their brows and power of their intellects, shouldnt' the owners of the for-pay fire department have figured out a way to make their services affordable and convenient such that at the time of any given fire the invisible hand of the free market would push the consumer to call them and be happy to pay the price? Sadly, it did not work that way. Like others, I want to know the what-ifs: what if the fire had threatened the homes or land of other people who HAD paid thier up-front fee? What if someone had been in the house? What if the homeowner had paid but he's not in the payment database (surely that kind of thing never happens). Why doesn't the business model include a work-around for this situation (a $500 fee for the honor of letting the fire department practice fighting fires on your house?). It seems much smarter to me to just pay yer damn five dollars a year in taxes and not have to worry about it.

- Tobbar

October 6, 2010 at 7:56pm

Blackton - I completely agree that the best solution is for the county to just assess taxes so they have enough money to pay Fulton for fire protection, but for more than 20 years voters decided it was more important to not be subjected to some crazy fire tax. They have made the decision to NOT pay South Fulton collectively many times. Ultimately this guy pisses me off because he perfectly symbolizes the idiocy of so many Americans. People scream bloody murder over the tiniest tax increase, but still feel that they have the right to services that they refuse to pay for. THAT is the real reason the budget is in the shape it is. Take a look at the levels of idiocy this guy had to go through to get to the point he did: 1 - Choosing to live somewhere that sees saving a few bucks a year as being more important than a fire department. (a charter for an Obion County Fire Department was created in the late 80's, and the small tax increases to fund it never won approval). 2 - When given the option of paying $75/year to have fire protection he chose not to (he says he forgot, but he had never paid the $75 in the past). 3 - After a previous fire his son had promised to pay the $75 fee if the fire was put out, and he then failed to pay that money after repeated collection attempts. (I'm leaving out the stupidity of placing burn barrels close to your house and leaving them unattended) At what point does this guy have to take responsibility for those actions? I don't think this guy is a Libertarian or politically aware in any way, shape or form. He just didn't want to pay taxes (or service fees) and didn't think about what the consequences would be. He expects a certain level of service, but refuses to pay a few extra dollars a year to provide those services. This seems to be the MO of far too many Americans today, people need to think through the consequences of paying less taxes. Communities that choose to pay less in taxes and give up services need to face the consequences of those decisions. Neighboring communities (or neighbors) that do choose to pay for services should not have to pay for the poor choices these deadbeat communities make. Last night I was looking at comments on an article in a TN paper and it appears that the residents of South Fulton have been shouldering much of the burden for the county for over 20 years. South Fulton is also legally unable to force collections on services provided outside city limits. It is something that is frequently abused. Like most communities they are currently experiencing cutbacks in many services, while providing a number of services to the county for free. I can understand why the mayor and citizens of South Fulton are fed up and are trying to make the county residents take some responsibility for themselves.

- Attrill

October 6, 2010 at 8:36pm

Lots of passion here. But go back to the clip. Listen to the free -riders. Do you hear any passion from them? They appear quite stoic for people who have just taken a big loss. If three animals died, they were presumably their animals. Are they wailing over the loss? Nary a murmur. These people aren't libertarians. They want government service and they expect to receive it. They just hope to get it without paying for it or by being able to cough up a dime only when they damned well absolutely have to. There are countless millions of citizens, liberals and conservatives, who quietly pay taxes and fees for governmental and private protective services that they understand are necessary to protect their families, their property, and ultimately their comunity, state and country. Others prefer that somebody else do the paying for them. Lets confine our angst for those who would like to pay the taxes and/or costs but can't.

- lsernoff

October 6, 2010 at 11:55pm

Lots of passion here. But go back to the clip. Listen to the free -riders. Do you hear any passion from them? They appear quite stoic for people who have just taken a big loss. If three animals died, they were presumably their animals. Are they wailing over the loss? Nary a murmur. These people aren't libertarians. They want government service and they expect to receive it. They just hope to get it without paying for it or by being able to cough up a dime only when they damned well absolutely have to. There are countless millions of citizens, liberals and conservatives, who quietly pay taxes and fees for governmental and private protective services that they understand are necessary to protect their families, their property, and ultimately their community, state and country. Others prefer that somebody else do the paying for them. Lets confine our angst for those who would like to pay the taxes and/or costs but can't.

- lsernoff

October 6, 2010 at 11:57pm

Attrill: The reason it discourages people from paying is that most houses don't catch on fire. If you also the option of paying for the service only if you need it people will wait until their houses catch fire. Can you explain how that's different from comprehensive auto insurance? As for incentives, the threat of having to pay a substantial sum in the future should be adequate to entice people to pay the modest subscription fee. GSpinks: You mention about placing a lien against a person until they've paid their bill, but liens and IOUs don't pay the bills of the fire station, or the salaries of firefighters trying to put food on their tables, and can be dissolved in bankruptcy. Which is why I said to put a high enough priority on such a lien. Doing so would limit the extent to which bankruptcy could write it off and move the fire department ahead of other creditors. And if you did skip on the car insurance and tried to purchase car insurance after racking up $5k in damage to your car, they wouldn't pay a single dime of those repairs; and the mechanics won't give you your car back until you've paid them $5k and the payment has gone through. On the first part, what did I say that even implies that things should be otherwise? On the second, that's fine when there is no cost to being delayed in getting one's car back. If the fire department waits until the payment clears before acting, there would be nothing to act on. Attrill: I completely agree that the best solution is for the county to just assess taxes so they have enough money to pay Fulton for fire protection, but for more than 20 years voters decided it was more important to not be subjected to some crazy fire tax Agreed. Libertarianism run amok.

- sighthnd

October 7, 2010 at 10:19am

Sernoff, how could you say such a thing, i.e., they hoped to get fire protection without paying for it? Inertia is a huge factor in any human being's life, including yours (unless you're like the robot I roomed with in college). Does anyone ever fail to bring a condom on a date? Does anyone ever pay a credit card bill on the 31st day because the envelope languished in their briefcase? One of life's fundamental truths is that small screwups can have disproportionately large negative consequences. To me it's right at the core of good governance that fire protection financing be engineered so that this particular screwup does not permit such disatrous consequences.

- Mikelawyr22

October 7, 2010 at 10:29am

"Can you explain how that's different from comprehensive auto insurance? As for incentives, the threat of having to pay a substantial sum in the future should be adequate to entice people to pay the modest subscription fee." Agreed, it is very much like auto insurance as long as someone pays for it before the fire. It differs from auto insurance in that there is a time period where the damage to the house can be prevented/lessened - there is no way to pick up insurance as a car is rushing towards you. I also agree that the threat of having to pay a substantial sum in the future should make people sign up. But apparently it didn't for this guy, he thought he could just pay $75 if there was a fire. Now he's facing the substantial sum or rebuilding his house. Because people make these dumb decisions all the time I think it is a slippery slope for South Fulton to offer any services to people who have not opted in for fire protection. It encourages people to put off paying until they have a fire. The number of people who pay and do not have a fire must vastly outnumber the people who do have fires, so any drop in the percentage of people signing up would have a devastating effect on the FD budget. I should also note that I do see this situation as being different from health insurance and services. Life is much more important than any loss of property, and should be treated accordingly. I also fully approve of the South Fulton Fire Department responding to all calls where a life is in danger.

- Attrill

October 7, 2010 at 3:38pm

Mikelawyr22: From your ID I surmise that you and I are both lawyers (in my case retired). Let's go to the facts presented in the TV news-clip attached by Jonathan Cohn. Mr. Cranick has his say on the incident. Does he suggest he forgot to pay the fee? Not so far as I can tell. He seems to say he chose not to pay and that that choice was made with the expectation that the fire department would protect his property whether he paid or not. The newscasters indicate that the fire department's policy, right or wrong, came as no surprise to the Cranicks or others living outside the borders of the municipality that maintains it. The New York Times editorial today hints, as you seem to do, that the failure to pay the fee was an oversight. Maybe the story has changed now that Mr. Cranick is enjoying his fifteen minutes of national recognition, but that sure wasn't what the Cranicks were saying at the time of the incident to the local newscasters. I also encourage Rhubarbs to look at the clip again. Not a murmur from the Cranicks, or anyone else, about the loss of any animals. What the clip indicates is that while the fire may have been unmanageable by garden hoses, it moved at a stately pace from some barrels to a shed and, after a considerable interval to the house. Were the Cranicks too busy trying to undo the errors of their prior choices to attend to their pets? Nary a clue. Lawyers love hypotheticals. If the Cranicks couldn't pay the fee they would have my sympathy. If the firemen recklessly endangered human life they would have my outrage. As of this writing, all I-- still-- see is a hard-head who bet a truly awful hand and had his bet called.

- lsernoff

October 7, 2010 at 6:44pm

Attrill: But apparently it didn't for this guy, he thought he could just pay $75 if there was a fire. Now he's facing the substantial sum or rebuilding his house. He said we was willing to pay "whatever it would take." How do you construe that into expecting to be able to get the benefits of coverage for just $75 when a response is needed? Paying for a response (rental of the fire engine(s), wages of the response team, lease of infrastructure that supports the response, feel free to pile on more) should be substantial enough.

- sighthnd

October 8, 2010 at 11:19am

I suspect we are all tiring of this thread. That said, I feel the need to respond to sighthnd. I go back to Cohn's analogy to healthcare. Consider, absent an effective mandate, the new health care reform law. As I understood liberal arguments, a) the mandate would bring in the non-participating healthy, and thus bring down the actuarial costs of insuring the whole (healthy and unhealthy); b) those who couldn't afford to respond to the mandate would be covered by Medicaid. Apply that reasoning to the Cranick situation. If you live in the town, you are subject to a mandate: you are taxed for fire protection and you get it. If you are outside the town, the county seeks to extend fire protection by extending taxes. The residents vote the tax down. The municipality that has provided for fire protection then says a) we will not cover free-riders, but b) you can buy coverage for $75. Cranick chooses not to pay, until he has a problem; then he's willing to pay the $75; indeed, he's willing to pay "whatever it takes". What will we do if --is it really an if? -- lots of folks respond to the health care mandate the same way Cranick did. I ain't paying a dime because I expect to get covered anyway; if, I need service, then I'll offer to pay "whatever it takes" (assuming there is any "whatever" to pay any material part of what "it takes"). Liberals, wake up! There is no room for free-riders in your universal care system. You pay. You are wiling to pay for those who can't pay. Why are you so tolerant of those who can pay, but choose not to? Based on the news-clip attached by Cohn to his blog, Cranick isn't a libertarian or a conservative; he's a stubborn fool. If I am right, he's part of a universe that is not confined by party allegiance or ideology.

- lsernoff

October 8, 2010 at 8:56pm

I heard the guy on TV saying that insurance would pay for the house itself, but that so much personal family stuff was lost that can't be replaced etc etc. What I'd love to know is, what insurance company would insure a guy who won't pay the basic fire protection fee for the area. Unless of course he claimed that he had . . .

- ironyroad

October 10, 2010 at 4:39pm