
Let's hope
They get their act together and lightning doesn't strike twice
Apple supplier Foxlink has admitted a fire damaged its plant in Tirupati, India, and that disruptions to production are to be expected as a result. Foxlink – or Cheng Uei Precision Industry Co., Ltd. as it is known in Taiwan – bills itself as "a total solution provider for fully-assembled accessories containing essential …
"as Foxlink is insured"
Given the comment
"... that smoke detectors, sprinklers and fire hydrants were faulty, and fire alarms did not go off."
I feel that the first statement may have a less secure footing than it appears.
Generally "But can you confirm you actually performed a 9th century tribal rain dance whilst you home burned? If you refer to clause 14.1.1.2 "Essential Mitigation Measures", witnesses' names are required for the dancing otherwise the claim is invalid"
You expect Apple to maintain two casing and I/O electronics variants just so they can continue to supply RoW with lightning sockets on their iThings, rather than standardising on USB-C for everyone?
Additionally, Lightning usually operates at USB2 speeds which is rather slow these days
And India has (perfectly sensibly) also decided that USB-C is the right way forward.
The EU (even without UK) is the world's largest single market for high-end tech goods. India and China may both be larger in population terms, but aren't (yet?) such big markets for more expensive products such as iPhones. With it being sensible for products to be the same worldwide, as far as is reasonably possible, I doubt anywhere is going to decide to want to hang on to Lightning or micro-USB just for the sake of it, now that the way the wind is blowing is clear (I doubt even the current UK government is quite that stupid).
That's interesting, I wonder why companies have better insurance than people do.
Because I'm pretty sure that, although my house is insured, if it burns down I'm not going to get all the money I put in it to buy a new house.
And I will certainly not get enough to build a replacement house.
Do I have to sign up for twice the insurance premiums ?
In my experience you should as normal building insurance includes rebuild cost. However, as I said above (somewhat tongue in cheek) there is usually a "taking reasonable measures to prevent loss" clause. I would be very surprised if insurance premiums were not based on the declaration that well maintained fire prevention and mitigation strategies were in place - such as sprinklers, fire doors, dry/wet risers, alarms etc. Not conforming to such a clause immediately gives insurance companies a way out of paying the (full) claim.
"Because I'm pretty sure that, although my house is insured, if it burns down I'm not going to get all the money I put in it to buy a new house."
What you describe is the case for most people. Most people insure their house for the value of the house. The value is based on what someone would pay for it. You're smart enough to notice that rebuilding a house costs more than the value of the house. There are lots of reasons for this, including the need to remove and dispose of the remains of the destroyed house. There's also the fact that you can only build a NEW house, while your value was for an old house.
If you insure a house for its value, you're also forgetting that in a catastrophic loss you'll also have to replace all of the contents (again, with new).
Add all of the above factors up (and then tack on an adder for needing a new house on short notice after a disaster, so you may pay expediting fees), and you'll find the value you need to insure to if you want a payout to cover everything.
Oh, and judging by the experiences of some friends who have had major house fires, insurance companies will fight to pay out as little as possible on the end.
What we're talking about here is a "current value" policy vs. a "replacement value" policy. In the US homes are usually insured for replacement value, but I don't know what the situation is in the UK. Cars, on the other hand, are usually insured for their current value unless you specifically negotiate a replacement value policy. Replacement value automotive policies are more common for things like RVs and collector cars.
Surely replacement value is the current value? I've never heard of a buildings and contents policy that didn't expect to pay out at current prices and I doubt many mortgage companies would accept anything less. Many even offer "new for old" replacement of contents as well.
I know of some Thai dishes where proper Thai cooks don't consider dynamite chillies hot enough so they roast them.
Pro tip: never, EVER breath in the smoke from any fire where they're doing that, or you'll be coughing for almost an hour.
As you will have probably guessed, nobody told me that..
This statement:
"... that smoke detectors, sprinklers and fire hydrants were faulty, and fire alarms did not go off."
Is inconsistent with:
"... as Foxlink is insured for plant, equipment, and inventory the blaze won't impact its bottom line."
Either their insurance company is run by fools, or something fishy is going on. Most commercial/industrial insurers, e.g. Factory Mutual use the evil eye against companies that do not comply with their loss prevention "recommendations".