Etaoin Shrdlu

Some potential issues may arise as this unfolds: Has the juristic entity updated the sums insured for the insurance covering the condo building and other community property to account for inflation? If not, then what's called an "average penalty" or "coinsurance penalty" may be applied to partial losses. For example, if a building was insured for its original construction cost 10 years ago for 8 million baht, but the actual cost to replace it today would be 10 million baht, any partial loss would only be paid at 80% of the cost incurred to repair. In other words, for a cost to repair quake damage that a contractor charges 1 million baht to fix, the insured would only collect 800,000 in claims proceeds. For a total loss, the insurer would pay policy limits, but these would would still be only 80% of the cost to replace. Some policies may grant some leeway on this, perhaps up to 20%, but many don't. If it is uneconomical to repair a building due to the nature and extent of the damage, the insurer may simply state that the building is a constructive total loss, in which case the insurer could pay the policy limits. Now the juristic entity and the unit owners face a dilemma. It may take many years to replace a large condo complex and some owners may simply want to collect insurance proceeds and walk away. Unfortunately, the replacement value of the building, which was used as the sum insured, will likely only be a fraction of the market value of all the units. Even if all unit owners agreed to abandon reconstruction and the juristic entity could distribute the insurance proceeds, they'd likely only get a fraction of what they paid for their units. I am not aware of any property insurance policy that will pay the difference between replacement value and market value for condo units, or anything else for that matter. Homeowners' insurance certainly won't. Let's hope sums insured have been updated and that all damages are superficial so that none of the buildings need to be declared a constructive total loss.

A normal contractor's "all-risks" insurance policy would insure against the peril of earthquake. So-called "acts of God", such as earthquake, windstorm, flood and wildfire, are insurable perils in most places, including Bangkok. It appears that the project is insured under a contractor's "all-risks" policy jointly underwritten by Dhipaya Insurance (40%), Bangkok Insurance (25%), Indara Insurance (25%) and Viriyah Insurance (10%). It will almost certainly include cover for the peril of earthquake. One report has stated that the building was 50% complete and another says 30%. The loss may well exceed 1 billion baht. Dhipaya's major shareholders are Government Savings Bank, Krung Thai Bank and the Petroleum Authority of Thailand. It has been reported that Dhipaya has reinsured 95% of the risk under the CAR policy, most of it probably with professional reinsurers offshore. The other insurers have probably reinsured major portions as well. Dhipaya is frequently the insurer for projects that involve the Thai government. Bangkok insurance is one of the largest insurers in the country. Viriyah is most known for its market share in the auto insurance sector. The four insurers are working with the OIC to investigate this loss.

More right-wing reactionary drivel.

It is also unlikely that policy documents would be kept at the construction site. Most relevant bits of paper for insurance purposes would probably be kept at the JV's off-site office, likely somewhere on Ital-Thai's premises.

If you mean earthquake, flood, windstorm, wildfire, and other naturally occurring events, which are sometimes referred to as "acts of god", then it it quite common for insurance companies to pay claims arising from these perils. These are insurable perils under most generally available property insurance policies.

There is definitely a risk of the JV folding and walking away from this if there is no contractor's "all-risks" policy covering the contract works.

There are a number of O&M contractors in Thailand that are in the power generation sector. An online search will reveal names and at least some of these companies accept online job inquiries. For construction-related power gen work, you would probably need to identify a particular project and then identify the EPC contractor and contact them directly to see if they are recruiting or can identify the relevant subcontractor for you to contact. Good luck.

Earthquake is an insurable peril, although coverage can be limited or more expensive in some high risk areas due to lack of insurance capacity. So far, most insurers in Thailand have offered property insurance including earthquake coverage up to the full value of the sum insured for buildings and contents. We'll see if Friday's event changes that in the future.

I think most juristic entities take out property insurance for the building and any other common property of a condominium development. Thai insurers do offer property "all-risks" insurance policies that include the peril of earthquake. Any juristic entity that did not take out such a policy would be negligent. Individual unit owners can take out homeowners' insurance that includes earthquake coverage. Some do, some don't. Insurers in Thailand rely heavily on offshore reinsurance for catastrophic perils like earthquake, flood and windstorm. How well and how quickly some of the claims get paid may depend upon the adequacy of each insurer's loss reserves and the nature of their reinsurance agreements. I'm wondering what the OIC may say about this event as I expect there will be questions.

The building wasn't complete, so the cost to replace the property destroyed in the quake will be less, and possibly much less, than the total contract value. Some cost items, such as architects' fees or profit margin won't be recurring, further reducing the cost to replace. Ital-Thai will likely be on the hook for the cost to re-build regardless of whether shoddy materials or faulty design or workmanship is involved. A main contractor is usually responsible for the entire project unless the principal separately contracted out specific elements. It would be up to Ital-Thai to pursue any subcontractors if they were negligent. This should not affect the government's rights under the contract with Ital-Thai. Earthquake is an insurable peril under construction "all-risks" policies. Ital-Thai could have insured this risk if they wanted to. I suspect government contracts may not require contractors to take out this coverage and Ital-Thai quite possibly did not. Some force majeure perils in construction contracts may be limited to excusing the contractor from paying liquidated damages in the event the project is delayed. Insurable perils, such as earthquake, are often not considered force majeure events with respect to the contractor's liability to re-build following a loss unless the project is abandoned by the principal. Political aspects aside, I think Ital-Thai will be on the hook for this one.

Here's a good analysis: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/5218181-signal-chat-violates-espionage-act/

It isn't about inviting the journalist. It's about using an insecure channel to discuss classified information. Signal isn't approved for discussing classified material.

Every single government official included in that chat should be fired and criminally charged. Not one of them said "hey, this is an insecure channel and we aren't supposed to be discussing this kind of thing". They were all negligent.

I suggest you check. All persons in the US, regardless of their immigration status, have the right to due process. Foreigners in the US on student visas are entitled to appear before an immigration judge prior to deportation.

They still have the right to go before an immigration judge before deportation.

If they broke the law, then charge them, and if convicted, deport them. They are still entitled to due process.

Look up the Brandenburg Test.

Student visas don't contain conditions that prohibit engaging in speech protected under the US Constitution.

As unpopular as that may be, it is likely protected speech.

Supporting a terrorist organization is spelled out quite clearly in statutes. They describe actions, not speech.

There are terms under which a student visa can be revoked, but exercising free speech isn't one of them.

What specific condition in their visa are they being charged with violating?

Spreading hate? I can think of someone else who's a master of doing that and gets masses of Americans to buy into it. Antisemitism? Some of those protesting are Arabs, who are themselves semites. Protesting against Israel's policies isn't anti-Jewish or hate speech. It's protected speech under the Constitution. Supporting Hamas? Not illegal unless it contravenes one or more of the very prescriptive laws that define support for terrorist organizations. These laws criminalize specific actions, not speech. I haven't seen any of the students charged with contravening any of those statutes. Occupying universities? Universities can expel students for prohibited conduct and can charge outsiders with trespass. Expulsion would cancel a student visa, but a misdemeanor trespass may not always be enough to get a foreigner deported. But again, some of the students are bing deported without being charged with any crime.

If a foreigner on a student visa breaks the law, then charge them and if they are convicted, deport them. The problem is that some foreign students are being deported without being charged with any crime and are thus deprived of their right to due process under the Constitution. You do support the US Constitution, don't you?