| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- | |
| Claim filed by owner of torched "Bomb House" | |
| 2011-01-06 | |
An attorney for the owners of the "bomb house" property near Escondido has demanded at least $500,000 for his clients' loss and distress, according to a claim filed with San Diego County.
"I think the key is, it's a difficult situation," Bunton said. "Sometimes individuals have to suffer to protect the greater good. And that may be the case here." | |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #7 The owner's plight is troubling but far more troubling is the state's action in burning the house despite the defendant's petition to the court to preserve it based on his belief that it might well contain exculpatory evidence. Hopefully the case against the defendant will be dismissed and the owner will be well compensated for the state's action. But I have a feeling it'll go precisely the other way. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2011-01-06 13:36 |
| #6 Yes, I have quite a bit of sympathy for the home owner in this case as well, whose been stuck footing the bill for renting to a tenant gone berserk. This case seems to be similar to others in which the tenants used houses as meth labs, and in several such cases the home owners must foot the bill to repair and renovate the house themselves, as the insurance companies cite a particular pollution and contamination exception clause, which exempts the insurance company from paying. |
| Posted by: Dar 2011-01-06 13:30 |
| #5 Thanks for correcting me, Frank. Yes, thank you, Frank. My orphan comment is kind of pointless with that information. I can't imagine that his landlord insurance covers this cause of damage to the property, since it suggests he doesn't screen his tenants well enough -- thinking further, his insurance will probably go up on his remaining rental properties based on the same supposition. His claim with the county makes sense, under the circumstances... especially since, if the county agrees to the liability, they're likely to pay out only the least of the cost to rebuild the thing, the value he'd had it ensured at, or the amount at which it could have been sold minus land cost. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-01-06 11:57 |
| #4 Thanks for correcting me, Frank. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2011-01-06 10:01 |
| #3 This does bring to mind the legal issues involving "destroy in place", if that destruction results in extensive collateral damage. As a ridiculous hypothetical, say that in a garage attached to your house, you regularly store a 5 gallon container of gasoline, paints including paint thinner, some compressed gas to do a little light welding, electronics repair parts, and a locked gun cabinet with guns and ammo in it, because you have small children. A guy who sold you a gun is busted by the ATF for selling illegally modified guns, so the police search your garage to see if you bought an illegal gun. They decide that you could build a bomb, and that your garage is dangerous, so that they need to blow it up. The resulting fire burns down your house. The police can indeed bring out experts who will testify that you had "bomb making materials" in your garage, and that they were stored in an unsafe manner, solely by their proximity to each other, so had to be "destroyed in place". |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-01-06 09:51 |
| #2 actually, the bomb-maker was a renter. The owner had no part in the fool's toys and is out a fairly nice house. I'm sympathetic |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-01-06 08:35 |
| #1 A show of hands from all who did not see this coming, please. Perhaps the various entities involved should send this loser a bill for services; services that just 'happen' to total 'at least $500,000.' Sadly, I suspect there will be an out of court settlement. |
| Posted by: USN,Ret 2011-01-06 01:08 |