• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

This is interesting....

County attorneys on Tuesday served the homeowner with legal notice of the plans to burn down the 1,395-square-foot home. It last sold in 2006 for $479,000, according to public records. A similar home nearby recently sold for about $300,000. “The law does not obligate the county to compensate the property owner because this home is being destroyed to protect the public health and safety,” Workman said.
Click to expand...
I hope the homeowner sues the county, I think the danger has to be a "clear and present" danger to allow them, to destroy without compensation. If there are other ways of abating the problem I think the county has to resort to them first.
 
I would venure a guess that the property owner does not have the resources to abate the property for reuse, and is just letting it sit. So, in my mind, a contaminated property sitting there for who knows how long before someone torches it for kicks, does present a clear and present danger to the public.

JMHO
 
The old standard fire insurance policy had a provision where the insurance was paid if the fire was started by order of the fire department. It was intended to indemnify an owner if the fire department burned a building with the hope of containing a conflagration. It has been many years since I worked in the insurance world. It would be interesting if that provision is still in the standard policy and if it would apply in this case.
 
It looks like the fire department started fire could still be covered. This would be an interesting exercise in insurance law.

This Company shall not be liable for loss by

12 included. fire or other perils insured against in this

13 policy caused, directly or indirectly, by: (a)

14 enemy attack by armed forces, including action taken by mili-

15 tary, naval or air forces in resisting an actual or an immediately

16 impending enemy attack; (b) invasion; © insurrection; (d)

17 rebellion; (e) revolution; (f) civil war; (g) usurped power; (h)

18 order of any civil authority except acts of destruction at the time

19 of and for the purpose of preventing the spread of fire, provided

20 that such fire did not originate from any of the perils excluded

21 by this policy; (i) neglect of the insured to use all reasonable

22 means to save and preserve the property at and after a loss, or

23 when the property is endangered by fire in neighboring prem-

24 ises; (j) nor shall this Company be liable for loss by theft.
 
Well at least the owner will get paid. Hopefully in the future he/she learns from this and keeps a better handle on tenants he rents to "fire suppression is a failure in prevention". Have a great weekend all ;)
 
If you consider there are cases where a police action results in damage to property. Like the Roseville Mall near Sacramento, police action resulted in allowing the fire to destroy a significant amount of property.

I would bet that there will be significant litigation after this event. And IF they miscalculated something, or a can of PETN is confined resulting in a detonation, there will be heads on the chopping block.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top