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

[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.