What is the Commercial Insurance Coverage for Something Like this - lightning

[marindependent]

From an article in accuweather: " That distinction [being struck by lightning] goes to the Willis Tower in Chicago, which ranks third in the U.S. for height, towering at 1,451 feet above the Windy City. That skyscraper was hit with 250 lightning strikes between 2015 and 2020.... "Chicago gets more lightning in an average year than New York City,""

Other than the irony that its named after an insurance group and its largest occupant is an airline, I find this fascinating.

What is the commercial insurance coverage for something like this look like? I am sure that there are some safety systems invovled, but you cannot help buy wonder if people get injured, materials get damaged, etc.

 

[adjusterjack]

What is the commercial insurance coverage for something like this look like?

Like the coverage part attached. This is a pretty standard part of property insurance policies that cover buildings, equipment and contents. Lightning damage has almost always been part of property insurance along with fire though this example of an early policy was for fire only.

OldestFirePolicy.JPG (1893×2837) (abi.org.uk)

Fire insurance quickly evolved to include lightning. Later was added the Extended Coverages which can be easily remembered with the mnemonic WSHAVER (sometimes Willie SHAVER): Wind, Smoke, Hail, Aircraft, Vehicles, Explosion, Riot and civil commotion.

The next step in the evolution of property insurance was the All Risk policy. Actually, All Risk except numerous exclusions and limitations. That didn't work well because insurance buyers stopped reading at All Risk and thought the policy covered everything. After that, policies read: "Risks of Direct Physical Loss unless...", the word "unless" serving as a warning that no, not everything was covered.

A tall building that gets hit by lightning hundreds of times likely has protection against lightning strikes that keep it and its equipment from being damaged. Occupants of such buildings are also likely to have such protection on their own equipment. Otherwise there would be lots of claims and insurance would be hard to come by.

As for injuries, those concerned should have their own accident, health, disability and life insurance (or workers compensation) because a liability claim against against a building owner for negligence probably would not get anybody a nickel since lightning is a natural occurrence.

 

[marindependent]

This is a pretty standard part of property insurance policies that cover buildings, equipment and contents.

Sure - Agreed - but would it standard for a sky scraper that has already been hit a dozen or more times?

 

[tikibarrister]

Sure - Agreed - but would it standard for a sky scraper that has already been hit a dozen or more times?

I imagine the cost for insuring Willis Tower against lightning strikes comes out to...round numbers here...about $0 per year.

OK, I'm being sarcastic...no doubt it's part of a larger general policy that covers many things. But skyscrapers are built with lightning rod-type protection systems that efficiently dissipate the electricity into the surrounding bedrock. Lightning strikes are a non-event.

I'm sure there's some effort needed to make sure that everything is installed correctly, big rooftop antennas are properly protected, etc., but these are all problems that were solved a century ago. Actually, I believe the basic principles go back to Benjamin Franklin.