More than likely, the barriers were to prevent someone deliberately crashing
into the facility. A lot of them went up after 9/11.

And when you consider that someone going into a data center could shut down
Visa or a telephone company, you are dealing with a catastrophic situation
should someone crash into the building.

So, even though the driver would still be liable, the people running the
data center have to balance the costs to themselves versus what they might
be able to obtain from the driver. In this instance, the cost of the barrier
would probably be justified.



"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote:

But if you go out and put a giant fence out in front of your house to
protect against cars crashing into your house, you probably will not get
a
premium reduction. Since the driver of the car would be liable for the
damages to your house, and the insurance company would not be liable, and
would not have to pay anything, it would be of no advantage to them if
you
put up the fence, so why should they give you a premium reduction?

Interesting analogy. It might just be that the risk of it happening to
a house is low enough that there is not enough of a change in the risk
level to warrant a premium reduction.

I have worked at a couple of large computer sites that had exactly
that - ditches and barriers to stop cars and trucks from crashing into
the building if they left the freeway. Obviously someone thought the
risk in that case was worth considering.