re: Hmmm...I wonder what the insurance policy is for Mandalay Bay

They'd have a layer of self insurance. Maybe 50MM. Then probably buy 500MM in excess of 50MM. TRIA is non applicable here more than likely. No exclusions on their self insurance. Might or might not be on the excess, but I doubt it. Depends on their risk manager. Most risk managers have no idea what they're doing. You would think MGM would have crisis management coverage.

The tort in Nevada goes forward. Coverage does as well. Negligence won't be necessary, but it will be found.

MGM isn't the only party either.

Not sure what the risk manager or SFP will say, but let's just say I have some insight into Nevada casino insurance and risk management, and their tort system.

quote:

---

Not a lawyer, but I'd imagine that if this sets precedent in hotels being responsible for what customers take into their rooms, then the hotel industry is as good as fricked.

---

Or the reason for federal mandate of scanners at the entrances to hotels.

Welcome top the actual implementation of the broken window theory

This might be one of the bizarre cases where the plaintiffs actually want to be in federal court. I think it would be highly unlikely for a Nevada court to impose a duty of care to inspect items going to a guests hotel room.

Even in federal court that seems like an extreme legal reach. The plaintiffs will also have an issue proving proximate cause.

There is usually a terrorism exclusion in most GL policies.

It will be filed. You can book it.

TRIA is not applicable here.

eta. TRIA is not applicable yet.

Nevada law does define terrorism however. But again, this is entirely a non issue for the self insured layer. That will likely take a successful tort to trigger this, but negligence wont need to be proven.

MGM discloses on their shareholder reports that it might not have adequate coverage, either from a liability perspective, or business interruption perspective.

The time element perspective is the most interesting. If that was rejected by their risk manager, that risk manager would need to be terminated for malfeasance immediately.

The TRIA premium on excess property, which would include both domestic and foreign acts, would be so small, it is baffling why someone who calls themselves a risk manager would go without.

I'm assuming hte excess coverage in force. Likely a safe assumption as MGM, and its various entities would own several billion in property value, so to self insure the first $500MM is reasonable.

Except MGM, and its various entities have gone BK so many time, reasonable might not be the case. But a Federal BK person somewhere would have by definition, to force them to have coverage.

But again, I've seen some strange things in LV casino bankruptcies. I have some experience in Las Vegas casinos, their torts, insurance coverage, and bankruptcies.

Why won't I gamble at a MGM property? That's an entirely different thread, although very interesting, to me at least, and somewhat related.

It's too bad about MB. They have some very nice suites, and a very decent high limits baccarat area. Without the nonsense of some of the more uppity places.

My guess is the "Tower" of casualty insurance is $500M ---$1B or more excess of an SIR. The exact amount of limits will be easy to to find as many insurance companies are included in the "Tower" AND numerous reinsurers all over the world. LIABILITY WILL NOT BE AN ISSUE. The amount of limits will NOT be confidential. Whatever the amount is will be thrown into a pot after the defense lawyers milk it for all they can get. Numerous other defendants will throw there limits into the same pot after there defense lawyers milk it to death. Then a Special Master like Kenneth Feinberg will be appointed and settle all claims. This is the way these things work. I have been in the insurance industry for over 40 years of which 30 years in reinsurance claims. I have seen it all!

Anyone who says liability won't be an issue is a fool.