Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1910-05-29
The Prevention of Fire
BY +. W. FITZPATRICK.


benefited by insurance regulations. IL
ought to be remembered that the Insurance
companies province is to fix rates and
make contracts, but not to make the risks
fireproof nor TO prevent or protect against
fire, just for the simple reason that neither
the prevention Of fire nor protection
against fire is their business or in line
with it. Insurance can only indemnify for
loss by fire. The insurance companies rate
and write every risk on its merits from
their viewpoint, and leave fire prevention
and fire protection to property owners and
the public To diminish or reduce hazards,
so that premium rates might be safely re-
duced, is not good insurance practice and
would result in injury to tho business. 1t
is no moro the duty of fire insurance
company to advocate fire prevention or
pay for any part of that work than it is
for life insurance company to inaugurate
or support great movements for the bet
teFment of hygenic conditions, or for
marine company to pay for lighthouses,
so why should we look to them to tell us
how to build properly and to insist upon
our doing so? They simply maintain
gambling house into which It has been the
fashion for us to go and bet as to the de-
struction Of our property Self-preserva-
ton. however, has shown them the neces-
sity for combating CONGREGATIONS. though
the individual fire is looked upon as a sort
Of good advertisement to keep the individ-
ual impressed with the desirability there
is OF being well insured Tho underwriters
have written an admirable building code
and cities would do well to adopt 1t. but
in all this l am reminded Of the recent
activity Of many liquor dealers and brew
ers in behalf of the temperance reform
movement. 1t is praiseworthy on their
part, but calculated to make one smile,
nevertheless.
The insurance people have been guilty,
though undoubtedly unintentionally of vir-
tually getting very high premiums, the
highest paid in any land Though still too
low upon shoddy construction to make it
prohibitive) under false pretenses. In
comparatively open districts or in small
places where it is most reasonable to eX-
| pect rapid growth, they at first make a
remarkably low rate on remarkably poor
| construction. People are thus encouraged
to build shabbily because of that low rate.
Such buildings multiply rapidly, and the
risk Of conflagration becomes more and
more imminent. Up go the rates, though
those very people had every reason to be-
lieve. and probably were told, that the
rates first made would continue. Later
the city is notified that that particular
district is an extremely bad one, and that
more fire appliances will have to be put
in, involving great municipal expenditure
| The insurance behests are Immediately
complied with, but, nevertheless, the in.
,gtx
raised, and no protest is of avail The
companies stand together. and you pay
the rate or go uninsured. Have we any
complaint to make? It's business We are
business men, and yet we submit to this
process of shearing and seem to be per.
fectly content to be the sheep and to keeI
on growing more wool that we may bt
sheared again.
With regard to insurance, let us see how
it really works. Here is a concrete ex
ample. Three years ago man put up 4
100000 store building. He didn't think 1
necessary to make it fireproof, because h
got rate Of only $1.5O per 500 on the full
value Of that building. Outside of repairs
ETC., that were not insured against, the to
tai cost of that building, including the in
surance premiums for three years, wa
$1O450O. The building burned a while age
and some Of his friends congratulated hin
upon receiving virtually the full amour
of insurance. There was some little salv
age in foundations, some brick, ETC., bu
let us assume that he got back the entir
100000. He didn't get back the premiums
There is loss of $500 It will be fiv
months before he will have gotten into
temporary building, with new stock an
his business going along normally, so tina
$4,000 is the least he can count upon los
ing in profits that he should have mad
during that time. He counts a still furthe
loss OF 5000 by not being able to make a
good purchases as on some of the stock
had. One thousand dollars more goes
> the loss records of orders, accounts, ett
The rent of quarters he will occupy Will
rebuilding will be 5000 more. Moving int
> the new building will be at least S1Ot
{ more. So that he figures a straight los
OF 81, 800, not to mention losses due to oil
customers getting away from him and sue
tncidentals that cannot be we'll expresse
Q in dollars and cents. He certainly mu.
!, now realize that he would have bee
r $4,000 better off had he had a firepro,
1 building.
But supposing his building had NJ
Q burned down. He would still have bee
Q far better off in freproof structure. L.
o us imagine, for example, that two men pl
r up buildings very similar to his, with II
I exception that one, Mr.. AS is a firepro
d building, while Mr.. BIS is exactly like OF
d first example, being the ordinary con
!, bustible construction. AS cost $4,000 al
o BIS 100000. B has saved" $4,000. At Il
& end OF five years BIS building is deteri
: rating and costing a little more each yet
to keep in repair. He has spent 900 a
: ready in repairs, and his insurance HI
J. cost him 1850 for the five years A
o building has cost him $500 for repairs, al
d he has carried just enough insurance
Is provide against any contingency of dar
l. age. His premiums will have been $40
II AS building, at the end of five years, tn
n costs him SllL50O. while BIS has cost hi
= SlOs500, but at the end of another year d
" cost stands at exactly the same figure +
d both, and A will continue to have bette
It sounder and safer building, while BIS
:. deteriorating at an ever-increasing "a
10 and may be completely Quilted by fire al
l. day, with ali the consequent loss of bu.
Or ness and profits that we have noted
ls the other case. A is a conservative blu.
ot ness man, while b is a Spectator, an
n naturally, believes in gambling with
ot insurance companies
-