Oh, that’s very interesting. If that’s true, someone should tell Kimberly-Clark’s insurers that they deliberately shut off fire suppression during a fire. Maybe this will actually cost them a few dollars?
It’s standard practice to shut down a fire suppression system after the fire is extinguished: the water will cause more damage than the fire did if you don’t. The owner is responsible for having someone on “fire watch” until the activated sprinkler heads are replaced and the system is put back into service – which needs to be done by someone qualified to do so.
It sounds like they did everything “right” in that regard, they just didn’t realize the guy starting fires was still there.
Can a fire really be considered watched if they don’t fully confirm there aren’t other fires? I get that it was a big place to watch and he was deliberately trying to destroy as much as he could, but it blows my mind a little that he succeeded that hard at executing his plan if they were doing things correctly… he annihilated a 1.2 million square feet warehouse with a single Zippo.
Where I am, if the building alarms go off and the second-tier of our automated systems calls fire services, the fire service (not just the company’s wardens) will walk through the entire complex to confirm there are no fires left. Even if it’s a false alarm, even if it’s the third false alarm that day (which is how we discovered one our very sensitive alarms had an electrical fault one time…). Even if you shut off the water, if there are remaining fires, our smoke / heat / IR detectors will reactivate the alarm systems.
Either way, even if KC is somehow not at fault, their premiums surely will go up and by much more than they would have spent paying their subcontractors properly. And insurers try to avoid paying, so it will hopefully be costly just for the legal and admin side.
Oh, that’s very interesting. If that’s true, someone should tell Kimberly-Clark’s insurers that they deliberately shut off fire suppression during a fire. Maybe this will actually cost them a few dollars?
lol I didn’t even think of this, hilarious
It’s standard practice to shut down a fire suppression system after the fire is extinguished: the water will cause more damage than the fire did if you don’t. The owner is responsible for having someone on “fire watch” until the activated sprinkler heads are replaced and the system is put back into service – which needs to be done by someone qualified to do so.
It sounds like they did everything “right” in that regard, they just didn’t realize the guy starting fires was still there.
Can a fire really be considered watched if they don’t fully confirm there aren’t other fires? I get that it was a big place to watch and he was deliberately trying to destroy as much as he could, but it blows my mind a little that he succeeded that hard at executing his plan if they were doing things correctly… he annihilated a 1.2 million square feet warehouse with a single Zippo.
Where I am, if the building alarms go off and the second-tier of our automated systems calls fire services, the fire service (not just the company’s wardens) will walk through the entire complex to confirm there are no fires left. Even if it’s a false alarm, even if it’s the third false alarm that day (which is how we discovered one our very sensitive alarms had an electrical fault one time…). Even if you shut off the water, if there are remaining fires, our smoke / heat / IR detectors will reactivate the alarm systems.
Either way, even if KC is somehow not at fault, their premiums surely will go up and by much more than they would have spent paying their subcontractors properly. And insurers try to avoid paying, so it will hopefully be costly just for the legal and admin side.