Stowe's Stone Hut Burns

thetrailboss · Aug 2, 2017

cdskier said:
The state had to pay a $100,000 deductible. Insurance covered the other $176,000. The Burton family also donated $150,000 towards the re-build cost...so really the state is ahead of the game. Supposedly there were some "optional" improvements the state made as well that Insurance didn't cover. Even with those improvements costing additional money, the state should still have had extra money left over from the donations (there were also another $12,000 in donations from other people).

Not sure what kind of apology people are looking for, but $150,000 is pretty generous and more than covered the state's share of costs towards the re-build.

Edit: Those were initial projected costs above, actual total costs came in closer to $370,000, but the state was only responsible for a total of $130,000 ($100K deductible + 30K in optional upgrades not covered by insurance). After accounting for donations, the state still had a surplus of over $30K.

In my world, if one is 100% liable for an incident then they pay 100% of the damages. Ideally, the State should have pursued them for damages and should have had them make right the wrong. The facts here were pretty convincing that the Burton kids were 100% at fault for the fire. They revved the stove and left it. Completely stupid.

I also thought I read in here that the State would NOT allow them to pay for it all because they did not want to "owe" the Burtons anything or something like that.

That said, this probably isn't over. The State's insurer has the right to go after the Burtons and their respective insurer(s) in subrogation. I imagine that is more politically acceptable.

cdskier · Aug 2, 2017

thetrailboss said:
In my world, if one is 100% liable for an incident then they pay 100% of the damages. Ideally, the State should have pursued them for damages and should have had them make right the wrong. The facts here were pretty convincing that the Burton kids were 100% at fault for the fire. They revved the stove and left it. Completely stupid.

I also thought I read in here that the State would NOT allow them to pay for it all because they did not want to "owe" the Burtons anything or something like that.

That said, this probably isn't over. The State's insurer has the right to go after the Burtons and their respective insurer(s) in subrogation. I imagine that is more politically acceptable.

Didn't the official report on the fire though list the cause as an "accident" and not "negligence"? There's no doubt what they did was stupid, but can the insurer still go after them if it was classified as an "accident"? Or is the liability from an insurance/claims perspective unrelated to the fire investigation report?

As for the state saying they wouldn't "accept" money from them, I vaguely recall reading/hearing that originally as well, but I guess they changed their tune since they did accept the money. Although technically the money was donated to the Vermont Parks Forever nonprofit which then gave the money to the project, so maybe that explains why/how they ultimately accepted the money?

cdskier · Aug 2, 2017

BenedictGomez said:
When that happens and the project goes over the estimate (as it nearly always seems to do in these government cases), does the buyer have any recompense, or do they just have to eat the full overage?

Hawk said:
Every Project is different. It totally depends on the type of contract that the state uses. In MA, when public money comes into play, there is a specific process that needs to be followed. The documents(Plans and Specs) are produced and in most cases they are vetted and are very tight as far as scope. The trades are bid out publicly in an open bid, with prevailing wage rates that apply. Once subs are vetted including the GC, a qualified low bidder is awarded and are held to the plans and specs. If any of the site conditions differ from the plans and specs, the sub is entitled to a fair extra on the job. Usually there is an OPM or Owners Rep that is in charge of proofing the costs. I am not sure what process VT used on this but that cost seem not that far off for what they did in my opinion.

To add one other point, after re-reading the articles it isn't clear that they actually did exceed the original estimate. The $270,000 estimate for the rebuilding may have been purely for the rebuild and not inclusive of the cleanup work.

thetrailboss · Aug 2, 2017

cdskier said:
Didn't the official report on the fire though list the cause as an "accident" and not "negligence"? There's no doubt what they did was stupid, but can the insurer still go after them if it was classified as an "accident"? Or is the liability from an insurance/claims perspective unrelated to the fire investigation report?

Accidents are often the result of negligence. I have not seen the report, but I bet that they say that they are not charged with finding fault.

And I was going to edit my response by adding that chances are that the Burtons are now off the hook because, if they were smart, their "donation" would in fact be a "settlement" of any claims complete with a nicely signed release that bars anyone from coming after them. I would not be at all surprised if this was all confidential and was trotted out as a "donation" to mask the fact that it was a settlement. Honestly, a $150,000 settlement is not too bad considering that there would be little or no legal fees, hassle, etc. The "justice" motive in me though makes me angry because these assclowns first appear to have gotten preference for YEARS, burned the place down, and then didn't own up to it. That's wrong. However, karma is a bitch and I will let karma do what it will do.

As for the state saying they wouldn't "accept" money from them, I vaguely recall reading/hearing that originally as well, but I guess they changed their tune since they did accept the money. Although technically the money was donated to the Vermont Parks Forever nonprofit which then gave the money to the project, so maybe that explains why/how they ultimately accepted the money?

Yeah, I don't recall what the exact reason was, or who said it, but it seemed illogical until you thought it through and understood the concern about the appearance that the Burtons "donating" money may in fact make them look good.

BenedictGomez · Aug 2, 2017

So I emailed the director of the State Parks for the missing Stone Hut data I need to precisely nail down the odds of winning the lottery for 'X' years in a row.

It's obvious from the article that State of Vermont does retain that data, and it seemed odd to me that it wasn't provided given it would/could 100% clear Vermont's name of any funny business, since that's exactly what Vermont claimed in the article when it says their lottery is "above criticism".

We'll see if I get a reply. It's a publicly run facility, so it is public information after-all.

cdskier · Aug 2, 2017

thetrailboss said:
Honestly, a $150,000 settlement is not too bad considering that there would be little or no legal fees, hassle, etc. The "justice" motive in me though makes me angry because these assclowns first appear to have gotten preference for YEARS, burned the place down, and then didn't own up to it. That's wrong. However, karma is a bitch and I will let karma do what it will do.

One thing I'll agree with BG on, I would love to see VT release the actual details on number of requests so we can see definitively whether they really did get preferential treatment.

Thinking about some earlier statements made in this thread, it is entirely plausible that they didn't, but without the raw data we simply don't know either way for sure. BG made a statement that there were only about 20 total requests for 5 day stays. That's over the course of the entire hut rental season (which is approximately 15 weeks in length). If Christmas week is in fact a not-so-desirable week for the hut, it is plausible that there may have been no other 5 day requests during that period as the other ~19 5-day requests could have been during more desirable time-frames during January, February, and March. Christmas week could have had some shorter-duration requests of 1-4 days, but with the lottery giving 5 day stays first shot, those would be irrelevant. Also factor in that other people that did request 5 day stays for Christmas week may have had that time-frame listed as a backup choice and not their first choice. So if those requests were "chosen" prior to the Burton's, they could have received their first choice which would still leave Christmas week open. Ultimately due to the complexity of the lottery rules, you just simply can't calculate a decent probability without details on the various requests received.

cdskier · Aug 2, 2017

BenedictGomez said:
So I emailed the director of the State Parks for the missing Stone Hut data I need to precisely nail down the odds of winning the lottery for 'X' years in a row.

It's obvious from the article that State of Vermont does retain that data, and it seemed odd to me that it wasn't provided given it would/could 100% clear Vermont's name of any funny business, since that's exactly what Vermont claimed in the article when it says their lottery is "above criticism".

We'll see if I get a reply. It's a publicly run facility, so it is public information after-all.

Does VT have anything similar to NJ's Open Public Records Act? If they did, that would make it difficult for them to refuse to provide the information.

Hawk · Aug 3, 2017

Unless you march your ass down to the department that actually does this work, personally request the information and continue to show up and be a nuisance to them, you will get nothing. They will just say that they are overwhelmed with requests and you are at the end of the list. To get the information you are requesting they would have to actually do some research.

VTKilarney · Aug 3, 2017

cdskier said:
Does VT have anything similar to NJ's Open Public Records Act? If they did, that would make it difficult for them to refuse to provide the information.

Vermont does.

mbedle · Aug 3, 2017

How old is this son? Is he an adult? Police report is:

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.tow...-11e5-b367-4f81c0b9aec0/56cc9c4bf396b.pdf.pdf

BenedictGomez · Aug 3, 2017

mbedle said:
Police report is:

The most interesting thing I glean from the full police report is that the reservation week was scheduled under Jake Burton's name, so that eliminates the "they win with numerous bogus entries in their friend's names" hypothesis - at least for 2016.

thetrailboss · Aug 3, 2017

BenedictGomez said:
The most interesting thing I glean from the full police report is that the reservation week was scheduled under Jake Burton's name, so that eliminates the "they win with numerous bogus entries in their friend's names" hypothesis - at least for 2016.

One heck of a coincidence.

BenedictGomez · Aug 3, 2017

mbedle said:
How old is this son? Is he an adult?

Doesn't matter. People this stupid shouldn't be playing with fire...or knives...or guns.... or electric tools, or chemicals, etc... Even an 8 year old would know not to "dry wood" against a fire with the door open.

The explanation for the cause of fire is like something you'd see in a comedy film and think to yourself, "nobody is THAT stupid" it's just a movie.

BenedictGomez · Aug 3, 2017

Also, they "built the fire up really big" (direct quote) and left the "stove's door open", and realized several hours later the place would be unattended, but DIDNT go up to put the fire out because "it was a 2 hour hike" and "they figured it would have been on fire already" if it was going to catch fire.

Isnt there something between "accident" and "arson" they could have been charged with?

Like..... "irresponsible, lazy,and smug arrogance leading to destruction of property, and fire on State land"

Smellytele · Aug 3, 2017

BenedictGomez said:
Also, they "built the fire up really big" (direct quote) and left the "stove's door open", and realized several hours later the place would be unattended, but DIDNT go up to put the fire out because "it was a 2 hour hike" and "they figured it would have been on fire already" if it was going to catch fire.

Isnt there something between "accident" and "arson" they could have been charged with?

Like..... "irresponsible, lazy,and smug arrogance leading to destruction of property, and fire on State land"

Charge them with "being stupid"

Jully · Aug 3, 2017

BenedictGomez said:
Also, they "built the fire up really big" (direct quote) and left the "stove's door open", and realized several hours later the place would be unattended, but DIDNT go up to put the fire out because "it was a 2 hour hike" and "they figured it would have been on fire already" if it was going to catch fire.

Isnt there something between "accident" and "arson" they could have been charged with?

Like..... "irresponsible, lazy,and smug arrogance leading to destruction of property, and fire on State land"

Gross negligence while using a public structure?

Hawk · Aug 4, 2017

You can't fix stupid as they say. But actually you would be surprised how many folks have absolutely no idea how to run a stove. I have seen some pretty stupid things even at my own place in VT by relatives. I had a nephew put his wet gloves directly on top of the stove once. It makes you shake your head. It has come to the point that I have to quiz people and have a long talk with them if they are going to stay alone at my place. We have actually thought about installing a lock on the stove so people don't use it. But that is obviously a little obsessive.

Glenn · Aug 4, 2017

Hawk said:
You can't fix stupid as they say. But actually you would be surprised how many folks have absolutely no idea how to run a stove. I have seen some pretty stupid things even at my own place in VT by relatives. I had a nephew put his wet gloves directly on top of the stove once. It makes you shake your head. It has come to the point that I have to quiz people and have a long talk with them if they are going to stay alone at my place. We have actually thought about installing a lock on the stove so people don't use it. But that is obviously a little obsessive.

Well put. Back in the day, people had more exposure to wood stoves. Not so much today. You really have to know how to operate a stove in order to not burn down the structure. Like everything, there's a learning curve. They are a wonderful source of heat, but it's nothing like the "set and forget it" of a thermostatically controlled heating system. Ours heats our a-frame nicely. But you have to stay on top of it; which means watching it, adjusting the air control and monitoring the thermometer that's on top of the stove. If you ever see a stove that has a chalky look to either the stove surface or the pipe, there's a good change it's been over-fired. Dry wood + too much air x an inattentive owner = over-firing.

Hawk · Aug 4, 2017

I have a new Jotul stove. It is excellent and once the fire is established, it is pretty easy to run. I throw 4 good size logs in and shut is all the way down and it will run at 250 degrees on the stove pipe type thermometer for about 8 hours. The biggest issue is if you leave the ash door open it does go nuclear. That is my biggest fear when people stay over. So by the sounds of it, Burton's kid did Two of the biggest no-no's for wood stoves. He leaned something against it and he left a big draft open that overheated the stove once it got going. It is obvious that he had no experience with stoves because those are lessons one and two that you would first learn.

cdskier · Aug 4, 2017

Did the stove in the Stone Hut have instructions provided for people not familiar with their usage? They definitely did some very stupid things.

Stowe's Stone Hut Burns

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads