5th Circuit holds that a homeowner may not recover when her house is destroyed by a SWAT team

[In It to Win It]

Raffi Melkonian
@RMFifthCircuit

CA5 holds that a homeowner may not recover when her house is destroyed by a SWAT team, where all sides agreed the destruction was necessary and proper.

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-40644-CV0.pdf

Link to tweet

[marble falls]

1. They aren't required to compensate for damages done when raiding the wrong ...

... homes, or even when they kill uninvolved people.

[msongs]

2. dont ya know the gestapo is above the law nt

[uponit7771]

3. "where all sides agreed..." don't see how SWAT and all sides agreeing fit

[markpkessinger]

4. This is just wrong!

UJnless the homeowner was somehow complicit in the crime, the fact that the police had to destroy or damage her property as part of addressing a public emergency actually makes a stronger case for the costs to be borne by the public. Saddling the homeowner with those costs is just unconscionable!

[brush]

8. And if there's a mortgage, the homeowner will be paying on nothing...

for years. Wonder if they'll rule out bankruptcy too?

The skids keep getting greased by these maga judges and we're devolving even faster into a dysfunctional and unkind nation without mercy.

[former9thward]

11. Judge Higginson who wrote the opinion was appointed by Obama.

[brush]

12. Thanks. You're so helpful. But what about the other judges on the Fifth Circuit?

[Silent3]

5. Even if it's not legally *required*, what about some basic decency here?

If individual towns and cities can't afford compensation, they should all contribute to a joint insurance fund to cover things like this.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. "they should all contribute to a joint insurance fund to cover things like this"

They do. Who do you think is fighting this case?

And there is probably an insurance company on her side that doesn’t want to pay. 9 times out of 10 “Headline cases” like this are really about insurance companies trying to lay off payment on the other guy’s insurance.

The city kind of has a point. The city doesn’t become your insurer just because some meth head maniac criminal uses your house as a place to make his last stand.

Reading through the case one thing did stand out. The victim/plaintiff filed motions to have the amount she collected from insurance and donations removed from the trial.

[Silent3]

14. Are you saying the city probably is insured, but the city's insurer is fighting the payout?

Or are you saying the victim is insured, but the victim's insurer is fighting providing a payout?

In case there's any confusion about what I said, I was talking about cities having insurance for things like this -- the kind of insurance that would cover damage caused by ANY raid that wasn't the fault of a homeowner who was raided, not the kind of insurance that only pays out when the police explicitly fuck up.

We shouldn't screw people over just because a criminal breaks into their house, and then the police go in and cause rampant destruction, proper procedure our not, going after the criminal.

Now if this victim has been made whole already due to their own insurance and/or donations, then I'd agree there's no reason for the city to pay them even more.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. Both. I'm saying this is very likely a battle behind the scenes of the insurance companies.

From the case:

Two weeks before trial, Baker filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of donations or insurance proceeds she received to help repair her home.

The city’s insurance is there to pay for their own fuck ups. Not the fuck ups of some drug crazed maniac.

Even the homeowner plaintiff acknowledges the police did what they had to do.

At trial, Baker's attorney made it a point on direct examination to underline that "there was some really good police work here," it "was a successful operation," "[e]veryone followed procedure," and "[e]veryone did what they were supposed to do," along with other affirmations that the officers acted irreproachably.

And in briefing, Baker makes clear she does not dispute that "it was necessary to destroy her house."

The homeowner is not claiming any negligence or wrongdoing. Somebody, and I suspect it’s her insurance carrier, wants the city’s deep pockets to chip in.

Her insurance likely paid and wants to attach some responsibility to the city’s insurance. But they don’t sue in the name of the insurance company. They usually require, as part of your policy, that you cooperate in your name in any lawsuits.

Personally, I would have no problem if the city helped this woman out. But that’s not insurance - that’s a gift. The city can’t arbitrarily assign themselves liability. I suppose the city council can gift the woman via a resolution but that’s a whole other issue.

[Silent3]

17. As a society, we should protect citizens when they, through no fault of their own...

...end up paying a personally disproportionate cost for actions deemed necessary to enforce the law. We shouldn't callously say, "tough luck" in situations like this. For many people their homes are a huge portion of their life savings. Having a house destroyed, and the damage not covered, is financially devastating for most people.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. Works for me.

I’m a big government liberal who thinks government should alleviate suffering and hardship

Now you have to convince a Texas town.

[moonshinegnomie]

6. If swat destroys my home they are oaying

If the law says the don’t have to I’m going around the law.

[PufPuf23]

7. Future is not looking so good anywhere.

alas.

[ecstatic]

9. That sounds really unfair

Heartless asshole (corrupt?) judges covering for their partners in blue.

It is absolutely disgusting that a ruling like this could happen in this country, but at this point I'm not surprised. The past 8 years have really opened my eyes.

Just think about what this ruling means because it could happen to any of us. Hopefully homeowners insurance covers situations like this but who knows? How would one even begin that conversation? Hey Allstate, does my insurance cover SWAT team damage or is that an add-on benefit?

[NowISeetheLight]

10. Unless

Unless the homeowner was a party to the incident that led to the damage, I believe compensation should be permissible. Maybe cities insurance should cover incidents like this. I mean this isn’t a common occurance (or we’d hear about it). But cases like this really show some remedy should be possible.

[Celerity]

16. shithole court is loaded with RW appointees