Interesting decision on Sovereign Immunity.

[SavannahMann]

This story is a little long. But it is important.

Police did tens of thousands of dollars in damage to a McKinney woman's house -- she got them to pay for it all via eminent domain

Police in Texas use governmental immunity to avoid repaying taxpayers for damaging their property. A new legal playbook may have been found in a landmark court win.

www.wfaa.com

To summarize. If the police pursue into your home and destroy things, they don’t pay for the damages. They claim sovereign immunity and you are stuck with the bills. Many lawsuits have sought to overturn or break that and failed. One novel legal approach has been successful. Instead of arguing sovereign immunity. The owner sued under Eminent Domain.

As most of you know Eminent Domain is where the Government takes your property for the public good. They want to build a school, or a firehouse. They want to build a road. They take your property and here is the kicker, they have to pay for it.

The woman who owned the home won the lawsuit. Then she won the appeal at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now a lot of cities are probably praying that the city just pays. They don’t want a Supreme Court Decision on this issue. They don’t want this being the law of the land. I think that is foolish. There will be one soon enough. As History has shown. Once one person does it, the technique spreads as fast as word of the technique can travel.

Every lawyer will hear of this. And when they are consulted concerning a case, even remotely similar, they will file the suit the same way.

My opinion is Good. I’ve long believed that the cops have avoided the consequences the rest of us have endured for centuries. If you break it. You bought it.

 

[konradv]

This story is a little long. But it is important.

Police did tens of thousands of dollars in damage to a McKinney woman's house -- she got them to pay for it all via eminent domain

Police in Texas use governmental immunity to avoid repaying taxpayers for damaging their property. A new legal playbook may have been found in a landmark court win.

www.wfaa.com

To summarize. If the police pursue into your home and destroy things, they don’t pay for the damages. They claim sovereign immunity and you are stuck with the bills. Many lawsuits have sought to overturn or break that and failed. One novel legal approach has been successful. Instead of arguing sovereign immunity. The owner sued under Eminent Domain.

As most of you know Eminent Domain is where the Government takes your property for the public good. They want to build a school, or a firehouse. They want to build a road. They take your property and here is the kicker, they have to pay for it.

The woman who owned the home won the lawsuit. Then she won the appeal at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now a lot of cities are probably praying that the city just pays. They don’t want a Supreme Court Decision on this issue. They don’t want this being the law of the land. I think that is foolish. There will be one soon enough. As History has shown. Once one person does it, the technique spreads as fast as word of the technique can travel.

Every lawyer will hear of this. And when they are consulted concerning a case, even remotely similar, they will file the suit the same way.

My opinion is Good. I’ve long believed that the cops have avoided the consequences the rest of us have endured for centuries. If you break it. You bought it.

Still need a law. Just because one judge has ruled this way, doesn't mean it couldn't be different in another jurisdiction or circuit.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Still need a law. Just because one judge has ruled this way, doesn't mean it couldn't be different in another jurisdiction or circuit.

Which judge was that?

The woman who owned the home won the lawsuit. Then she won the appeal at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

[konradv]

Which judge was that?

Whoever ruled in the eminent domain case.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Whoever ruled in the eminent domain case.

There have apparently been four so far..

Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.

So which one were you referring to?

 

[konradv]

There have apparently been four so far..

So which one were you referring to?

I'm not, the article was.

 

[SavannahMann]

Still need a law. Just because one judge has ruled this way, doesn't mean it couldn't be different in another jurisdiction or circuit.

Let me get this straight. You expect political types, no matter the party, to vote against their own protective policies?

 

[konradv]

Let me get this straight. You expect political types, no matter the party, to vote against their own protective policies?

Where did I say that? What could be done and what should be done can be two quite different things?

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's clearly a groundbreaking case based upon a notion that's taken far too long for attorneys to think of and attempt. Thank goodness this one did. Just the fact that so far we, who generally disagree about everything, have somehow unanimously thanked you for posting this topic indicates that the Supreme Court would back this decision, perhaps with two idiotic dissents at most.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Two longstanding injustices are apparent from this case. The police getting away scot-free with destroying people's private property under such circumstances -and- insurance companies getting away with not having to pay the owner's homeowner insurance damage claims using the same bogus excuse.

Baker's insurance did cover some of the damage -- though, only what was done by Little.

That included anything connected to his suicide and subsequent cleanup.

Baker's insurance, however, didn't cover everything else.

"They told me they didn't pay for an act of government," Baker told WFAA.

The insurance gets away with blaming "act of government" while the government argues "sovereign immunity." Neither should ever have gotten away with either lame excuse.

The first rule of corporate (impersonal) insurance (often governments as well) being "First, deny all claims" -- it's high time some clever attorney dreamt up and tried another test case challenging the constitutionality of that entire approach toward serving the public.