And Insurance companies might start considering underpaid employees as an insurance liability.

That'd truly be righteous but I suspect they'll start expecting more surveillance, security, and fire systems instead.

Assuming it wasn't a company owned warehouse, the landlord will probably be making an argument that their disgruntled employee makes the fire their fault.

Funny, if they weren't already planning that, seems like an awfully knee jerk reaction based on a single incident.

Wow, its like... direct action works, when complaining loudly and formally doesn't!

Whaaaat, that's crazy lmao

If it were profitable to burn down a warehouse, there’d be a whole industry around it

Maybe, or maybe sales have been shitty and instead of product sitting on the shelves this let's them write stuff off and pocket cost of materials.

Just saying there's more to it than what it would mean to you or i if we had all our eggs in one basket and had to count on an insurance payout to keep above water. It's likely not a windfall for them, but i wouldn't be surprised if one warehouse fire is much more than a line item in a meeting or two, or even good news for some department or other if they were overextended in stock or something. A second or third big loss like that, though, would probably be required before anyone important is motivated towards any kind of inspection based on the bottom line though.

We'll there are lots of kinds of insurance, a manufacturing and distribution company isn't going to have the same insurance you buy as a homeowner. I would expect they are covered for whatever they calculated into their cost/risk contract?

That said, i maybe know enough to know most of what i don't know, but far from inside into on the topic.

That's thinking of it way too much like an ideal one for one transaction. Insurance companies don't based their profits on how much the stuff costs to replace directly, they make money based on the cost of payouts compared to premiums. If they can get enough clients to pay the premiums, they could pay 10x costs and it would make exactly 0 difference to their bottom lines.

It's actually the reverse in many situations, insurance exists to help recoup costs in an emergency and if you have a policy that doesn't pay enough to recover from a loss then you are underinsured, and the only way to ensure that is to buy a policy where you're at least slightly over insured. That's why homeowners insurance is based on replacement cost, not on the cost when you bought it.

Business insurance admittedly is different, but to be fully covered, you are also getting replacement costs for things like stale product, depreciated equipment (which depreciates differently for insurance purposes than for taxes and accounting) and things like building and infrastructure which are at replacement costs vs purchased prices.

Basically insurance companies are less concerned with having to make absolutely sure everyone gets as screwed as possible on every individual payout, than they are making sure they're collecting premiums much faster than they are having to payout at all. Writing every policy so that no one 'ends up with a plus' is far less profitable than making sure they are selling policies that are useful. Of course they also want to pay out as little as possible, but that is not nearly as attainable as calculating the likelihood of risks and raising rates whenever possible.

Likely, but self insurance is a thing for a reason, if it was cheaper to insure than self insured they'd probably do that, but they have that risk wether it was arson or an accident and if one warehouse would actually hurt them, they wouldn't be self insuring.

Any way you look at it, unless it hits them enough that they have to be concerned about the price of champagne they're filling their swimming pools with, 'one' incident isn't going to make them rethink their whole salary structure. At this rate it's shifting from one budget line item to another, and they'll probably just take it as an opportunity to invest in two warehouse to replace the one that went up.

They'll miss it on some things for sure, but if there were sunk costs or put performing products, that money can be reinvested in better performing items. I'm sure I'm an active, perfectly running warehouse, having to replace every item just with an at cost payout would be annoying, but there's also the possibility that the payout gets them out from under old stock they would otherwise have lost even their costs on.

Oh, for sure that's part of the problem, they definitely have their own issues, but they are more like a layer. Insurance itself isn't a bad thing, but like basically ever industry they suffer from greed and loopholes too.