Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 129
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: Another pay for spray debacle

  1. #41
    Forum Member GTRider245's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Augusta,GA
    Posts
    3,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by conrad427 View Post
    What happens if you don't pay the fee because you don't want the fire protection. If you live that far away from a private fire dept. what would be the point? What duty did they have to stay and perform a 20,000 dollar overhaul?
    If I lived next to a roofing business and one day I came home to find a new roof on my house that I did not ask for and got billed twenty thousand dollars for it I don't think I would pay for it.
    The whole system sounds screwed up.
    The difference is that your falling in roof will have no affect on your neighbor's house or the surrounding woods/field/etc.

    I agree that the whole bill thing is stupid, being as the homeowner didn't call R/M and ask for service and another fire department was the primary responding agency.

    I do lay all blamce for the entire situation on the homeowner for not being infomed and knowing the specifics of the agreements and if they had fire protection or not.
    Career Firefighter
    Volunteer Captain

    -Professional in Either Role-

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.


  2. #42
    MembersZone Subscriber tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTRider245 View Post
    I do lay all blamce for the entire situation on the homeowner for not being infomed and knowing the specifics of the agreements and if they had fire protection or not.
    While the homeowner should get points off for not knowing what the fire protection arrangement is/was, I blame the municipality (in this case, the county) for not ensuring that all areas under their purview have fire protection. I'm sure that if you dial 9-1-1 looking for a cop, you'll get one, and you won't get a bill.

    One thing that I feel takes some of the heat off the homeowner in this case is that they apparently are paying some sort of county fire assessment - supposedly something that benefits fire districts in the county. Unfortunately, they don't live in one of those fire districts.

    Plenty of blame to go around.
    conrad427 likes this.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  3. #43
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    And yet, once again, if they had paid the subscription fee we would not even be talking about the Rural Metro bill, would we?
    But they made the call NOT to pay. So why did rural metro even show up? Clearly, the homeowner did not want their services. If they showed up as some kind of mutual aid deal, then that's between them and the requesting department. The requesting department should not have the power to decide that the homeowner MUST use rural metro servces (and pay the bill) when the homeowner already rejected them.

    I don't really want to be in the position of defending a homeowner who may have rolled the dice and lost, but it's his call. No one else should do it for him. Maybe it was an informed decision based on rural metro's ability, or inability, to truly protect his property.

    And 20K for overhaul is still ridiculous. That's unasked for overhaul.

    I'd love to know the speceific legalities involved. This is truly a horrible system. I don't see how any judge could enforce a claim to payment by rural metro.
    conrad427 likes this.

  4. #44
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    But they made the call NOT to pay. So why did rural metro even show up? Clearly, the homeowner did not want their services.
    I don't necessarily think there's sufficient evidence to support these conclusions. From what I read, it's ambiguous as to why ANY fire department showed up to this fire since it was located in an area without any fire service coverage and no subscription to RM itself. The article also seemed to infer that the homeowners in that area were under the impression that they had fire coverage based on them paying that "fire tax" that was actually going elsewhere. It's also unclear if the homeowner made the conscious decision to not pay for a subscription based on not wanting fire protection, thinking he already had fire protection based on the tax, or was just willing to roll the dice.

    The only thing clear about what the homeowner did not want from RM is the bill for their services, not necessarily the services themselves.


    If they showed up as some kind of mutual aid deal, then that's between them and the requesting department. The requesting department should not have the power to decide that the homeowner MUST use rural metro servces (and pay the bill) when the homeowner already rejected them.
    Well, this is kind of debatable. Fire departments across this nation have pretty much always had the power to decide whose services a property owner would use in the event of a fire or emergency. In my experience, if the primary department needs more help, whether it be pre-arranged first alarm automatic aid, subsequent alarm mutual aid or via special request, they do not ask the property owner what fire department they want to respond. They simply make the request for the resources they believe they need. The only difference in this situation is that one of the departments involved is private and bills for services and that complicates the situation.

    And 20K for overhaul is still ridiculous. That's unasked for overhaul.
    I would tend to agree that the $20K bill seems a bit much. I also think the story was ambiguous about exactly what actions RM provided in comparison to what actions the municipal fire department(s) provided. There seems to be an assumption that RM arrived after the fire was put out by the Surprise FD who then left while RM handled the overhaul, but I don't recall seeing anything to verify that was the case.

    I'd love to know the speceific legalities involved. This is truly a horrible system. I don't see how any judge could enforce a claim to payment by rural metro.
    I'm also curious about the specific legalities involved, but from a layman's perspective...........

    Let's say that you suffered a heart attack at a local store rendering you unconscious and no family/friends are with you at the time. A bystander calls 911 and requests an ambulance on your behalf. The ambulance comes and treats you and takes you to the hospital without any actual consent from you or your family since you're unconscious and they aren't present.

    You arrive at the hospital having been identified as suffering an MI (heart attack). The ER examines you and sends you to the cath lab where your medical problem is resolved and after a few days you get sent home.

    You didn't ask for any of the treatment you received or who provided it to you (since you were unconscious). Each step of the way, they just assumed that you would want your life to be saved and did it making decisions that they felt were in your best interests.

    A couple weeks later, the bills come in the mail. Is there no obligation to pay them since you didn't actually ask for any of the care you received? If the matter goes to court, the judge will enforce the claim.

    Is this situation that much different? It's pretty reasonable for a person to think that the property owner would want the fire department called if their property was on fire and for the fire department to then put out said fire upon their arrival and to get more help if needed in order to do that. Maybe an adjustment is in order if it's determined that the charges are grossly out of whack from industry norms, but if the response generates a bill for legally billable services, why wouldn't the judge uphold the claim?

  5. #45
    Forum Member EastKyFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    2,972

    Default

    Clearly the fire service is totally FUBAR in this area. That said, it would appear to be Surprise FD's incident, and that R-M was there at their request.

    I can't imagine it being legal for R-M to charge the homeowner. Surprise, yes, but not R-M. Especially when by R-M's own admission they have no written mutual aid agreement.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
    --General James Mattis, USMC


  6. #46
    Forum Member HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    A couple weeks later, the bills come in the mail. Is there no obligation to pay them since you didn't actually ask for any of the care you received? If the matter goes to court, the judge will enforce the claim.

    Is this situation that much different? It's pretty reasonable for a person to think that the property owner would want the fire department called if their property was on fire and for the fire department to then put out said fire upon their arrival and to get more help if needed in order to do that. Maybe an adjustment is in order if it's determined that the charges are grossly out of whack from industry norms, but if the response generates a bill for legally billable services, why wouldn't the judge uphold the claim?
    The difference there is "implied consent". Remember that from EMT class? Court precedence has shown that there is reasonable cause to believe that a person suffering from a severe medical event and is not conscious would want their life to be saved. This is also why we in PA must see a DNR that is signed by a doctor and have it cleared by med command before we can refuse care.

    I have seen instances at fires where the homeowner has asked to "just let it burn" so there is less cleanup and they are not dealing with the constant reminders. Several articles (maybe all the same source, I am not sure) all stated that Surprise had the fire "knocked down" and "under control". Rural Metro was then called in for clean up. You may be able to claim implied consent on bringing the fire under control, or even say the increased danger to exposures necessitated the response. But to say that $20,000 worth of overhaul was necessary without consent is beyond, what I would call, reasonable and customary.

    Again the big difference between your example and the actual is the threat to life safety. Surprise billing would seem to be expected as they did not know if there was anyone home or they worried about exposure.
    ATFDFF likes this.

  7. #47
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post

    Let's say that you suffered a heart attack at a local store rendering you unconscious and no family/friends are with you at the time. A bystander calls 911 and requests an ambulance on your behalf. The ambulance comes and treats you and takes you to the hospital without any actual consent from you or your family since you're unconscious and they aren't present.

    You arrive at the hospital having been identified as suffering an MI (heart attack). The ER examines you and sends you to the cath lab where your medical problem is resolved and after a few days you get sent home.

    You didn't ask for any of the treatment you received or who provided it to you (since you were unconscious). Each step of the way, they just assumed that you would want your life to be saved and did it making decisions that they felt were in your best interests.

    A couple weeks later, the bills come in the mail. Is there no obligation to pay them since you didn't actually ask for any of the care you received? If the matter goes to court, the judge will enforce the claim.
    I see the point you're getting at, but it's not quite comparable. EMS (and medicine in general) operates around the doctrine of implied consent in the case of an unresponsive/incompetent patient. This is well written into laws all around the nation.

    If you don't want medical care in a situation where you may not be able to refuse treatment, you should keep a signed and valid DNR/Advance Directive on you 24/7.

  8. #48
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    The difference there is "implied consent". Remember that from EMT class? Court precedence has shown that there is reasonable cause to believe that a person suffering from a severe medical event and is not conscious would want their life to be saved. This is also why we in PA must see a DNR that is signed by a doctor and have it cleared by med command before we can refuse care.
    Yes, I'm well aware of "implied consent" and its implications, but thanks for missing the point being made.

    I have seen instances at fires where the homeowner has asked to "just let it burn" so there is less cleanup and they are not dealing with the constant reminders. Several articles (maybe all the same source, I am not sure) all stated that Surprise had the fire "knocked down" and "under control". Rural Metro was then called in for clean up.
    I just reread the article I saw about this and like I stated, the information is ambiguous as to exactly what happened. It stated that RM handled the overhaul to some extent, but also made it appear that they could've been there for the actual suppression too.

    You may be able to claim implied consent on bringing the fire under control, or even say the increased danger to exposures necessitated the response. But to say that $20,000 worth of overhaul was necessary without consent is beyond, what I would call, reasonable and customary.
    I'm not saying that $20,000 worth of overhaul was necessary and have stated that I thought that amount seemed excessive. Additionally, overhaul is part of the overall process of extinguishing fires. So, I would argue that under the notion of "implied consent" for putting out ones fire, our duty involves more than just knocking down the fire. It also involves making sure the fire is actually out. The only reason there is an issue with this incident is because a large bill was sent.

    Again the big difference between your example and the actual is the threat to life safety. Surprise billing would seem to be expected as they did not know if there was anyone home or they worried about exposure.
    Yes, in this particular case there doesn't appear to have been an immanent life safety threat, but that is irrelevant to the point being made. Both situations involved one party providing services in an emergency situation based on the assumption that the person receiving the services would have wanted them to intervene and then billing for the services.

  9. #49
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATFDFF View Post
    I see the point you're getting at, but it's not quite comparable. EMS (and medicine in general) operates around the doctrine of implied consent in the case of an unresponsive/incompetent patient. This is well written into laws all around the nation.
    Yes, the exact details aren't quite the same and I wasn't trying to say that. I was making the point that the fire service is essentially operating under the same basic concept of implied consent in the absence of the property owner upon arrival. Yet, in the medical situation, there's acceptance of being billed despite the patient not having actually requested or consented to the treatment provided. So, from that limited perspective, is the FD billing them for services provided much different?

    However, unlike an EMS situation, the fire department can override the property owner's request to not intervene. That ability is also established in laws around the nation.

    If you don't want medical care in a situation where you may not be able to refuse treatment, you should keep a signed and valid DNR/Advance Directive on you 24/7.
    Sure, but unless you're wearing it like a necklace or it's clutched in your hands, there's a good chance that those providing treatment may not find it until after the fact. Regardless, you'll still be on the hook for the bill for that treatment.

  10. #50
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I don't necessarily think there's sufficient evidence to support these conclusions. From what I read, it's ambiguous as to why ANY fire department showed up to this fire since it was located in an area without any fire service coverage and no subscription to RM itself. The article also seemed to infer that the homeowners in that area were under the impression that they had fire coverage based on them paying that "fire tax" that was actually going elsewhere. It's also unclear if the homeowner made the conscious decision to not pay for a subscription based on not wanting fire protection, thinking he already had fire protection based on the tax, or was just willing to roll the dice.

    The only thing clear about what the homeowner did not want from RM is the bill for their services, not necessarily the services themselves.


    Well, this is kind of debatable. Fire departments across this nation have pretty much always had the power to decide whose services a property owner would use in the event of a fire or emergency. In my experience, if the primary department needs more help, whether it be pre-arranged first alarm automatic aid, subsequent alarm mutual aid or via special request, they do not ask the property owner what fire department they want to respond. They simply make the request for the resources they believe they need. The only difference in this situation is that one of the departments involved is private and bills for services and that complicates the situation.

    I would tend to agree that the $20K bill seems a bit much. I also think the story was ambiguous about exactly what actions RM provided in comparison to what actions the municipal fire department(s) provided. There seems to be an assumption that RM arrived after the fire was put out by the Surprise FD who then left while RM handled the overhaul, but I don't recall seeing anything to verify that was the case.



    I'm also curious about the specific legalities involved, but from a layman's perspective...........

    Let's say that you suffered a heart attack at a local store rendering you unconscious and no family/friends are with you at the time. A bystander calls 911 and requests an ambulance on your behalf. The ambulance comes and treats you and takes you to the hospital without any actual consent from you or your family since you're unconscious and they aren't present.

    You arrive at the hospital having been identified as suffering an MI (heart attack). The ER examines you and sends you to the cath lab where your medical problem is resolved and after a few days you get sent home.

    You didn't ask for any of the treatment you received or who provided it to you (since you were unconscious). Each step of the way, they just assumed that you would want your life to be saved and did it making decisions that they felt were in your best interests.

    A couple weeks later, the bills come in the mail. Is there no obligation to pay them since you didn't actually ask for any of the care you received? If the matter goes to court, the judge will enforce the claim.

    Is this situation that much different? It's pretty reasonable for a person to think that the property owner would want the fire department called if their property was on fire and for the fire department to then put out said fire upon their arrival and to get more help if needed in order to do that. Maybe an adjustment is in order if it's determined that the charges are grossly out of whack from industry norms, but if the response generates a bill for legally billable services, why wouldn't the judge uphold the claim?
    Your EMS scenario simply does not apply. In the State of Wisconsin there is Implied Consent for medical treatment in an emergency if you are incapacitated.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  11. #51
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I don't necessarily think there's sufficient evidence to support these conclusions. From what I read, it's ambiguous as to why ANY fire department showed up to this fire since it was located in an area without any fire service coverage and no subscription to RM itself. The article also seemed to infer that the homeowners in that area were under the impression that they had fire coverage based on them paying that "fire tax" that was actually going elsewhere. It's also unclear if the homeowner made the conscious decision to not pay for a subscription based on not wanting fire protection, thinking he already had fire protection based on the tax, or was just willing to roll the dice.

    The only thing clear about what the homeowner did not want from RM is the bill for their services, not necessarily the services themselves.


    Well, this is kind of debatable. Fire departments across this nation have pretty much always had the power to decide whose services a property owner would use in the event of a fire or emergency. In my experience, if the primary department needs more help, whether it be pre-arranged first alarm automatic aid, subsequent alarm mutual aid or via special request, they do not ask the property owner what fire department they want to respond. They simply make the request for the resources they believe they need. The only difference in this situation is that one of the departments involved is private and bills for services and that complicates the situation.

    I would tend to agree that the $20K bill seems a bit much. I also think the story was ambiguous about exactly what actions RM provided in comparison to what actions the municipal fire department(s) provided. There seems to be an assumption that RM arrived after the fire was put out by the Surprise FD who then left while RM handled the overhaul, but I don't recall seeing anything to verify that was the case.



    I'm also curious about the specific legalities involved, but from a layman's perspective...........

    Let's say that you suffered a heart attack at a local store rendering you unconscious and no family/friends are with you at the time. A bystander calls 911 and requests an ambulance on your behalf. The ambulance comes and treats you and takes you to the hospital without any actual consent from you or your family since you're unconscious and they aren't present.

    You arrive at the hospital having been identified as suffering an MI (heart attack). The ER examines you and sends you to the cath lab where your medical problem is resolved and after a few days you get sent home.

    You didn't ask for any of the treatment you received or who provided it to you (since you were unconscious). Each step of the way, they just assumed that you would want your life to be saved and did it making decisions that they felt were in your best interests.

    A couple weeks later, the bills come in the mail. Is there no obligation to pay them since you didn't actually ask for any of the care you received? If the matter goes to court, the judge will enforce the claim.

    Is this situation that much different? It's pretty reasonable for a person to think that the property owner would want the fire department called if their property was on fire and for the fire department to then put out said fire upon their arrival and to get more help if needed in order to do that. Maybe an adjustment is in order if it's determined that the charges are grossly out of whack from industry norms, but if the response generates a bill for legally billable services, why wouldn't the judge uphold the claim?
    I am assuming that when the homeowner made the decision NOT to subscribe to RM that he was NOT unconscious or AMS. Totally different than unconscious person on medical call.

    The homeowner made it clear he didn't want RM's services (by not subscribing). So NO ONE, including Surprise FD, should have called RM to the scene and when they got there they should not have operated.

  12. #52
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    179

    Default

    Interesting.


    https://www.ruralmetrofire.com/estab...vice-knox.html

    Rural/Metro Fire Department is a private company providing high-quality, cost-effective fire service. Rural/Metro Fire Department is not funded by tax dollars. We are a subscription based fire department supported through annual fees by a yearly membership.

    You can contract with the Rural/Metro Fire Department directly. The annual fees are based on the total square footage or assessed value of the property to be protected.

    Additionally, you may be eligible for discounted rates on your homeowners insurance when you establish service with us. We offer many services to our customers in addition to fire service coverage, please contact the local Customer Service Department in your area for more information.

    Non-members are billed for fire service. Homeowner’s insurance might only cover a fraction of the bill, leaving the property owner responsible for the difference. With your annual subscription you will avoid costly, non-member hourly rates for response to your property.

    You can easily establish your Rural/Metro fire service online! Or perhaps it is time to renew your fire service and you need to make an online payment, visit our Renewal section.

    Please fill in the necessary fields to receive information for your Rural/Metro Service. Incomplete or incorrect data entered below may delay the processing of your request. If you are requesting service for more than one property, you must complete separate forms for each property.

    ** Payment information will be forwarded to you following completion and verification of Rural/Metro Fire Department Service Agreement information.

  13. #53
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FF-Andy View Post
    Interesting.


    https://www.ruralmetrofire.com/estab...vice-knox.html

    Rural/Metro Fire Department is a private company providing high-quality, cost-effective fire service. Rural/Metro Fire Department is not funded by tax dollars. We are a subscription based fire department supported through annual fees by a yearly membership.

    You can contract with the Rural/Metro Fire Department directly. The annual fees are based on the total square footage or assessed value of the property to be protected.

    Additionally, you may be eligible for discounted rates on your homeowners insurance when you establish service with us. We offer many services to our customers in addition to fire service coverage, please contact the local Customer Service Department in your area for more information.

    Non-members are billed for fire service. Homeowner’s insurance might only cover a fraction of the bill, leaving the property owner responsible for the difference. With your annual subscription you will avoid costly, non-member hourly rates for response to your property.

    You can easily establish your Rural/Metro fire service online! Or perhaps it is time to renew your fire service and you need to make an online payment, visit our Renewal section.

    Please fill in the necessary fields to receive information for your Rural/Metro Service. Incomplete or incorrect data entered below may delay the processing of your request. If you are requesting service for more than one property, you must complete separate forms for each property.

    ** Payment information will be forwarded to you following completion and verification of Rural/Metro Fire Department Service Agreement information.
    Nowhere do they explain by what authority they can operate on the private property of homeowners who CHOOSE NOT TO SUBSCRIBE.

    Basically they are saying you have to subscribe or we will show up anyway and bill you. And judging by the OP that bill will be exhorbitant. Unless there are local laws allowing this or contracts in place with municipalities, I don't see how it is legal and I don't see why any non subscriber would pay. And if there is a contract in place with the municipality, why not just fund it through taxes levied on ALL properties?

  14. #54
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I am assuming that when the homeowner made the decision NOT to subscribe to RM that he was NOT unconscious or AMS. Totally different than unconscious person on medical call.
    He may or may not have made the conscious decision not to subscribe. Regardless, he was not there when his house caught fire and the fire department arrived. Therefore, the FD went to work on the reasonable assumption that the homeowner would want the fire in his residence to be extinguished. In that sense, it's exactly like the unconscious person, because EMS and the hospital would treat the patient on the reasonable assumption that the patient would want them to save his life.

    The homeowner made it clear he didn't want RM's services (by not subscribing). So NO ONE, including Surprise FD, should have called RM to the scene and when they got there they should not have operated.
    You're making assumptions. The article clearly states that resident thought they had fire protection because of the county fire tax they were paying, so it's quite possible that he thought he had fire protection and didn't see the need for redundant coverage. The initial article I read had comments by the neighbors stating that they were suspicious of RM's mailing because they thought they already had coverage.


    The focus shouldn't be on the fact that RM was called to the scene and operated, the focus should be on what certainly seems to be an excessive charge for doing so.

  15. #55
    Forum Member HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Without knowing the state laws, I can't see how Rural Metro can even respond to a scene. They stated that they have no formal agreement with Surprise. And we all know that if it isn't in writing, it didn't happen. This looks a lot more like the roofer analogy a few posts back. R/M shows up with no written agreement or authority with the intent to bill for services that were not requested by the person to be billed. The person to be billed did not want R/M services as they felt they had coverage through Surprise and the county tax. Surprise does not have a written contract with R/M that gives R/M the legal authority to be on private property during an emergency situation or thereafter.

    I would think that a good attorney would very quickly be able to have the fees dismissed, and possibly have R/M investigated by BBB for deceptive marketing practices, giving services not requested and billing, and billing above established industry standards. R/M states that they are a private company with no standing contracts other than through subscriptions, and therefore they must follow all business and industry rules.

    As for the medical analogy, the thing you are missing is this is the same as a private ambulance company chasing calls on the scanner, providing care, and then billing. The expectation is that the local company that has a written contract for the area would be the ones to provide the care. Many departments have ambulance subscriptions around here even though they are fire based ambulances. The subscriptions offer that the amount not paid by insurance is covered in your subscription. The expectation is that if you are stricken in your home and you have a subscription, you will not pay the additional fee.

  16. #56
    MembersZone Subscriber tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    Many departments have ambulance subscriptions around here even though they are fire based ambulances. The subscriptions offer that the amount not paid by insurance is covered in your subscription. The expectation is that if you are stricken in your home and you have a subscription, you will not pay the additional fee.
    Yeah. We tried that here. The state insurance folks said we were selling "insurance" without meeting the requisite regs and shut down such programs statewide...

    I agree with the position that these folks did not make the call for service by R/M so responsibility for the bill is really iffy. I do recall reading in the coverage, however, that Surprise might see some money from that bill, too. As already mentioned, fire protection in that area is clearly FUBAR. Perhaps this will cause someone to sit up and take notice, and move toward fixing it.

    An analogy that occurs to me (for those who don't have to deal with the whole subscription thing) would be if the FD called, on their own behest, one of the restoration companies that comes in to clean up after a fire or other such disaster. If I were the homeowner, I'd certainly be refusing to pay that bill, since I didn't call them. As a firefighter (and past chief) I don't even like the idea of recommending a particular firm for such a task. Unless I can give them an unbiased list of ALL such companies in the area, I'm leaving it to them to figure out.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  17. #57
    Forum Member conrad427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Just south of Canada
    Posts
    528

    Default

    If you pay rural metro the five hundred dollars does Surprise FD still show up? I find it strange that Surprise called rural metro for mutual aid, shouldn't it be the other way around? I would think is would make more sense to give my 500 dollars to Surprise thinking that an insurance company might not even acknowledge that I had fire coverage if I gave my money to a fire department that was twenty miles away. I would not consider fire protection that was twenty miles out at a rate of five hundred dollars a year to be worth the money.
    The fire service is about service to our fellow man.
    There is a trust that must not be broken and we are the keepers of that trust.
    Captain Dave LeBlanc

  18. #58
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    Without knowing the state laws, I can't see how Rural Metro can even respond to a scene.
    They are a fire department, so why would it be so hard to figure out how they might get called to a scene.

    They stated that they have no formal agreement with Surprise. And we all know that if it isn't in writing, it didn't happen.
    Maybe so, however that doesn't mean they can't use each other for mutual aid. Which was pretty much stated outright by the RM spokesman.

    This looks a lot more like the roofer analogy a few posts back. R/M shows up with no written agreement or authority with the intent to bill for services that were not requested by the person to be billed. The person to be billed did not want R/M services as they felt they had coverage through Surprise and the county tax.
    Where does it say that the person felt they had coverage from Surprise FD?

    Surprise does not have a written contract with R/M that gives R/M the legal authority to be on private property during an emergency situation or thereafter.
    Again, they are a fire department and the primary difference between this situation and what happens daily across the country is that this particular FD is a private one that bills for their service.

    As for the medical analogy, the thing you are missing is this is the same as a private ambulance company chasing calls on the scanner, providing care, and then billing.
    Except for the fact that RM wasn't "chasing calls on the scanner", they were requested to respond.

    The expectation is that the local company that has a written contract for the area would be the ones to provide the care.
    Right and sometimes they are not able to provide that care and have to defer to another agency. If an agency is "jumping calls" as in your example, then that is obviously a problem that needs dealt with however, as already stated, RM didn't do that.

  19. #59
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    176

    Default

    The more I look at this the less it makes any kind of sense.

    Rural Metro has 2 stations in East Maricopa County, both South of Scottsdale. It would appear the home was 7 miles east of Surprise (pop 120,000), North West of Glendale (pop 200,000) and North of Scottsdale (pop 220,000). Rural Metro's stations are in Mesa, so all three of these not exactly tiny city fire departments are considerably closer than Rural Metro that would have had to pass through Scottsdale to get there.

    Why on earth would anybody pay $500 a year to a fire department 20 miles away when you have 3 that are much closer (Surprise's station was only 7 miles away), particularly when you are already paying a county fire tax?

    This doesn't add up right to me.

  20. #60
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    Maybe the City departments don't go outside the city they are paid to protect?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pay for Spray
    By LVFD301 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 12-18-2011, 12:56 PM
  2. Pay for Spray?
    By roninwarrior in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-10-2011, 02:04 PM
  3. Spray on fireproofing question
    By MasterMerlin in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-16-2010, 01:20 PM
  4. Spray on window film???
    By dcor73 in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-06-2008, 05:32 PM
  5. Recip. Saw, Spray Bottle?
    By dvanbeek in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-04-2000, 12:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts