[TowerTalk] tower damage / insurance question

[Ron Stone]

In message <33686DBC.1A19@erols.com>, Bill Hider <n3rr@erols.com> writes
>Paul van der Eijk wrote:
>> 
>> My tower was damaged by a truck delivering gravel (one guy and
>> 2m antenna in the top.) Their insurance wants to prorate the years I
>> owned the tower over the useful live of the installation. I'm not sure that
>> this is acceptable, but if I have to make the choice, what would be the
>> useful live of the installation?
>> 
>> Tower is 90ft Rohn 45, guyed by a mix of phillystran and steel cable.
>> 
>> 73 Paul KK4HD
>> 
>> --
>> FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
>> Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
>> Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>> Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>
>Paul,
>
>What they are doing is "depreciating" your installation.  This is a
>typical insurance procedure and is quite logical.  You have already used
>the portion the useful life prior to the accident and the company who
>caused your installation to fail is responsible only for that portion of
>the useful life AFTER the accident.  At the end of the useful life you
>will have to pay for improvements to extend the useful life.  The
>accident causer is not responsible for this either.  That's the logic.
>
>Now to your question.  I obtained a chart depicting the useful life of
>the galvanizing of a steel tower under various environmental conditions
>(eg, urban, sea coast, residential, industrial, etc).  That chart
>identified the useful life in terms of the amount of galvanizing
>remaining on the tower and defined end of life when there was 95% of the
>galvanizing remaining, ie, 5% rust.
>
>As I recall (I don't have the chart in front of me), in an urban,
>non-corrosive environment, the useful life was 30-35 years.
>
>The chart is probably available from the American Galvanizers
>Association.  Their web site is:   http://usalink.net/aga/
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Bill, N3RR@EROLS.COM
>
Bill. This guy had a good tower before the truck hit it. We work over
here on the principle of restoration to that was before, as the central
concept of assessing damages. Now if Paul can find a used tower in the
same condition as the one that was damaged all well and good. But what
are  the realistic possibilities of this? Not a lot I would suggest. 

I think the truck company are trying it on. I've suggested Paul contacts
the legal dept of the ARRL if he is a member, or a good attorney. In
this situation I would be claiming (if the tower has to be junked)

1. For removal of the old tower dismantling antennas and cables.
2. For delivery and installation of a new tower.
3. Rigging and installation of antennas and cables.

4. Loss of libido ??

No way would I settle for less than a new one. After all if the truck
company had not done this, Paul would still happily be working the bands
(with the old tower).
>--
>FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
>Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
>Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com

-- 
Ron Stone

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com