JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
He was given $5000, which probably was determined based on his insurance deductible. He most certainly filed an insurance claim.

I'd venture to say that a bunch of those damages were ordered as restitution from the bad guy. The owner will never see it, but the perp is truly the one at fault.
I get that and understand. But if there were more personal and financial responsibilities, our courts and police would operate differently. Not hating on police because they are operating under the rules. It's the rules that screw the tax payers.
 
I get that and understand. But if there were more personal and financial responsibilities, our courts and police would operate differently. Not hating on police because they are operating under the rules. It's the rules that screw the tax payers.

I don't think anyone would like that, other than in theory. Either the taxpayers really get screwed by paying for all damaged properties, or have a police force that does absolutely nothing but take reports and try to connect dots later. Just imagine if the guys grandaughter died in the home instead of the house getting messed up? If not this situation, than another? Sorry we didn't do an entry because the cost of exterior doors has gone up?

Or, allow for crimes like theft or simple assault to go uninvestigated and remove the ability to challenge those in the act, since further damage is likely.

Its already begun. Most PDs have a limited or no-pursuit policy because people got fed up with the damage and/or safety concerns.

LE operates under the rules, but the public has been effective on setting those rules.
 
KJ,

Not only pay those premiums, don't buy the least coverage legal.

Buy well over the limit and no I don't sell insurance.

Buying more coverage than is legally necessary does not (surprisingly) cost much more than the bare minimum.

^ This is really good advice. Some years back I sat down and really went over our coverage. Life was fine, but auto and home were seriously under-covered and adjusted. The home owner's in particular had things not covered or covered inadequately, so the necessary riders were added. We also invested in umbrella insurance on top of that because of all the sue happy morons out there. As you mentioned, it was surprisingly affordable. (And I'm not an insurance salesman either; my occupational field totally unrelated.)
 
killdozer_news.jpg
 
He was given $5000, which probably was determined based on his insurance deductible. He most certainly filed an insurance claim.

I'd venture to say that a bunch of those damages were ordered as restitution from the bad guy. The owner will never see it, but the perp is truly the one at fault.
Offered $5,000 from city to help rental, insurance gave out close to $400,000 which didn't cover cost of tearing down the house and building new one. They also did damage to the house next door and they received $2,000, for $70,000 in damages.

The house in question the shoplifter was hiding in was condemned.
 
"What Mr. Lech also failed to tell you was that he chose on his own to demolish the house rather than repair it, repour the foundation that wasn't damaged and built a bigger better house where the old one stood," said Gallegos. In her message, she included a photograph of Lech's new home.
 
Although this has been more than likely discussed, I'd be focused on the integrity of the structure of the house as it pertains to future safety of the occupants. I'm also curious to how quickly home insurance would deny a claim based on the police entering to "protect the public." If the city can deny any obligation, then I'm guessing insurance could do the same.

This is really a messed up situation for the homeowner. In all honesty, these are situations where if he set a Gofundme, I'd kick the guy whatever I could spare. This is assuming he's been failed by any other responsible parties.
 
I woke up to flash bangs going off in the neighbor's home. Freaking SWATer shot through most of the windows and tore off the garage door ($450K nice home)...all the while the known drug dealer was sleeping inside and they could have just as easliy arrested him later that morning when he went to work at his daddy's carpet store. But then they wouldn't have had all that fun now would they :rolleyes:
 
No, the article said the city offered $5,000, not the insurance.

The insurance paid higher, but did not cover tearing down the condemned house and rebuilding.
$5,000 isn't bubblegum when we're talking about home repair. That MIGHT have covered cleaning up the mess before the repair.
 
No, the article said the city offered $5,000, not the insurance.

The insurance paid higher, but did not cover tearing down the condemned house and rebuilding.

We are going in circles. He had insurance. Insurance has a rebuild amount. I bet you he got every bit of what it would cost to rebuild his existing structure. He chose to build a new house instead. Its not a free ticket to get a whole new house.
 
^ This is really good advice. Some years back I sat down and really went over our coverage. Life was fine, but auto and home were seriously under-covered and adjusted. The home owner's in particular had things not covered or covered inadequately, so the necessary riders were added. We also invested in umbrella insurance on top of that because of all the sue happy morons out there. As you mentioned, it was surprisingly affordable. (And I'm not an insurance salesman either; my occupational field totally unrelated.)
If you don't mind me asking, which company were you with? I'm currently looking at upping my coverage and I want to go with someone who will give me what I need without costing a fortune.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top