The property on which the supposed replica of the mythical ark told in the ghastly Bible story of Noah, that was built by the fundamentalist group Answers in Genesis, has suffered some damage due to rain, an occurrence rich with irony. The owners of the new ark are suing insurance companies for not covering the damage.
The Ark may have been constructed to withstand 40 days and 40 nights of flooding, but Northern Kentucky’s Ark Encounter property did not fare as well as Noah’s original construction when rains hit the area.
Court documents filed in District Court show that the owners of the Ark Encounter in Northern Kentucky have filed a suit against their insurance company after flood and storm damage.
Crosswater Canyon Inc. alongside the Ark Encounter, have filed suit against multiple defendants who comprise the business’ insurance underwriters after their property was damaged by heavy rains.
According to the suit, heavy rains caused a landslide and some structural support damage near the Ark exhibit.
I don’t know why this lawsuit was only brought against the insurance companies. Surely heavy rains are an act of god and thus s/he should be the main defendant?
Irony police here: It’s a humorous coincidence, but it isn’t irony…
Definition 2, wiktionary:
“All the world’s a stage, / And all the men and women merely players;”
I note that def 6 of irony on wiktionary says:
Now, technically, there is no reason to think that the Ark Park would be actually exempt from having flood damage, because God is make-believe, and therefore cannot protect anything from flooding. However, there is an implicit contradiction between what would be the case if God were real (and therefore presumed to be protecting a place which was delivering his message to the world, especially and specifically a message about that time when he did actively flood the world), and the actual case of such a place in fact experiencing flood damage.
I think an example of “humorous coincidence” would be if someone named “Flood” experienced flood damage.
A trickier example would be an actual flood insurance provider experiencing flood damage. On the one hand, there’s no reason that a business in general would be less at risk; however, I think there would be an implicit expectation that an actual flood insurance provider, specifically, as part of due diligence in scouting a place of business, would include the rejection of someplace at all at risk of flooding. So maybe it would fall under #6 after all.
/Overthinking