View Full Version : No compensation for Greenwood Village family after police destroy home, court rules
.455_Hunter
10-30-2019, 14:58
https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/greenwood-village-home-destroyed-police-court-ruling/73-54f6f358-3f57-4011-9085-ab0872020016
A family whose Greenwood Village home was destroyed by police after an armed suspect took refuge inside it and refused to come out won't get compensation from the city for their losses, according to a ruling from the 10th Circuit Appeals Court.
The ruling also noted that the "innocence of the owner does not factor into the determination."
Please help me understand what is going on here:
Does homeowners insurance cover this?
Are the homeowners screwed or are they trying to double dip from the city and insurance?
Your thoughts and comments?
Insurance specifically excludes police action, and the government specifically denies responsibility for anything they do.
Similar case in Greenwood Village a few years ago when the cops blew a few vehicle sized holes in a home when a bad guy ran and hid in there.
whitewalrus
10-30-2019, 15:32
Yep, most things that involve the government or civil unrest are excluded in insurance policies. Really sucks for this family as the damage to that house is obscene. The police should have just knocked the whole thing down to save them the demo cost.
And whats worse is that most cities would cite the owners for the house and then charge them to demo it unless they fix or demo it themselves.
hollohas
10-30-2019, 16:12
W.T.F.
Note to self- armed suspect comes into my home then I make sure to dispatch him and toss the body outside before the police arrive so they don?t fuck up my home.
Similar case in Greenwood Village a few years ago when the cops blew a few vehicle sized holes in a home when a bad guy ran and hid in there.
Der der der. For some reason I was thinking this was a new case in Glenwood Springs. Very clearly the same case.
hurley842002
10-30-2019, 16:49
Seems like one of the few legitimate causes for a gofundme...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
.455_Hunter
10-30-2019, 16:53
If the homeowner is truly unable to claim on his insurance, how can the city government withhold any sort of compensation and look themselves in the mirror everyday?
Where are the citizens of Greenwood Village? I would think a petition mandating compensation would get good support in the public.
If the homeowner is truly unable to claim on his insurance, how can the city government withhold any sort of compensation and look themselves in the mirror everyday?
Where are the citizens of Greenwood Village? I would think a petition mandating compensation would get good support in the public.
Or a change in government immunity laws.
Der der der. For some reason I was thinking this was a new case in Glenwood Springs. Very clearly the same case.
I'm glad you caught that.
Pretty crazy that there's no limitation on the amount of private property that the police can destroy and insurance doesn't cover it either. There should be relief somewhere for something like this. It's not an act of God, and it's government at the local level so it's really not an act of war...or is it? [emoji848][emoji14]
Or a change in government immunity laws.
You would have to think that the citizens understand that this could also happen to them, so it needs to never happen again.
Most of this is covered in the original thread on this event.
Rucker61
10-30-2019, 17:18
If the homeowner is truly unable to claim on his insurance, how can the city government withhold any sort of compensation and look themselves in the mirror everyday?
Government has no shame.
Here is the original thread about the stand off: https://www.ar-15.co/threads/148963-Greenwood-Village-standoff?highlight=Greenwood+village
Here is the updated thread where the police department agrees to pay $5,000: https://www.ar-15.co/threads/157734-Updated-news-on-greenwood-village-home-demod-by-police?highlight=Greenwood+village
An article I read stated that the home itself was insured and was rebuilt under insurance however the couple that was renting/living in the home did not have renters insurance so their belongings that were destroyed were not covered.
BushMasterBoy
10-30-2019, 18:31
You can petition the legislature and maybe get the state to pay damages by legislation. Below is the ruling by the federal court.
You can bet if it was the judges house, the outcome would be different.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1051.pdf
.455_Hunter
10-30-2019, 19:15
An article I read stated that the home itself was insured and was rebuilt under insurance however the couple that was renting/living in the home did not have renters insurance so their belongings that were destroyed were not covered.
That's what I am trying to figure out. If the guys insurance policy covered what happened, then the story loses a lot of punch.
That's what I am trying to figure out. If the guys insurance policy covered what happened, then the story loses a lot of punch.
This is what I found:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/30/police-blew-up-an-innocent-mans-house-search-an-armed-shoplifter-too-bad-court-rules/
"His expenses to rebuild the house and replace all its contents cost him nearly $400,000, he said. While insurance did cover structural damage initially, his son did not have renter’s insurance and so insurance did not cover replacement of the home’s contents, and he says he is still in debt today from loans he took out.
“This has ruined our lives,” he said.
Gallegos stressed that any large expenses Lech incurred are because he chose to do more than necessary, and chose to “repour the foundation that wasn’t damaged, and [build] a bigger better house where the old one stood.” Lech insisted starting from scratch was necessary."
Another article:
https://thecrimereport.org/2019/10/30/court-co-city-owes-nothing-for-house-police-destroyed/
"The city refused to compensate Lech’s family but offered $5,000 in temporary rental assistance and for the insurance deductible."
Zundfolge
10-30-2019, 20:39
... how can the city government withhold any sort of compensation and look themselves in the mirror everyday?
More and more I've come to the position that anyone that works for any level of government are not innocent.
More and more I've come to the position that anyone that works for any level of government are not innocent.
How would you feel about a government insurance adjuster with a law degree?
hurley842002
10-30-2019, 20:48
More and more I've come to the position that anyone that works for any level of government are not innocent.
More and more I've come to the position that your posts become nuttier and nuttier by the day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Zundfolge
10-30-2019, 21:04
How would you feel about a government insurance adjuster with a law degree?
I'm sure Pablo Escobar probably had a gardner ... they probably never did anything evil themselves, just tended to Escobar's yard-work and whatnot ... but he was still paid by the fruits of Escobar's crimes.
More and more I've come to the position that your posts become nuttier and nuttier by the day.
Guilty conscience?
hurley842002
10-30-2019, 21:19
Guilty conscience?
Nope, I've followed all policies/procedures and laws, and most importantly upheld the constitution, what about you? What's your story now that you aren't selling maps?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rucker61
10-30-2019, 21:19
More and more I've come to the position that your posts become nuttier and nuttier by the day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's a solution for that.
I am fairly certain some funny fire casualty company like state farm, farmers, liberty, statewide will come up with a commercial and start writing insurance for that.
Meanwhile I am fairly sure companies like AIG will write a customized special insurance.
Zundfolge
10-30-2019, 21:27
Nope, I've followed all policies/procedures and laws, and most importantly upheld the constitution, what about you? What's your story now that you aren't selling maps?
We're quickly coming to the point that following policies procedures and laws is actually working against the constitution. Government at all levels has become inexorably corrupt. I guess if you're watch-dogging, maybe monkey-wrenching here and there, you're actually helping so I guess there still is a place for good people in government. But its eventually going to come down to NOT following policies/procedures and maybe even laws.
As for what I'm doing, I'm providing my services to the private sector (a little freelance work, a little temp work, still looking for a full time permanent) and my conscience is clear. Justin keeps trying to talk me into taking a DOD job and I keep refusing because I'm not going to feed the beast any more than I have to (I mean they do still extort taxes from me to pay for God-knows-what evil).
hurley842002
10-30-2019, 21:30
There's a solution for that.
Yeah I have to ignore people over on Glocktalk because they are extreme left wing nut jobs, didn't think I needed to ignore any anti gov conspiracy theorists on here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As much as I'd like to jump in on this conversation, I feel like it does nothing to steer to thread back to what it's supposed to be about.
Until the militarization of police forces and their TTP’s is rolled back, and as long as they continue to have immunity from the consequence of overzealous attempts at whatever, and until the Nuremberg defense as applied to domestic police work is no longer a thing, stuff like this will continue to be a thing.
GilpinGuy
10-30-2019, 23:12
Until the militarization of police forces and their TTP’s is rolled back, and as long as they continue to have immunity from the consequence of overzealous attempts at whatever, and until the Nuremberg defense as applied to domestic police work is no longer a thing, stuff like this will continue to be a thing.
Amen.
Martinjmpr
10-31-2019, 09:16
An article I read stated that the home itself was insured and was rebuilt under insurance however the couple that was renting/living in the home did not have renters insurance so their belongings that were destroyed were not covered.
That's what I am trying to figure out. If the guys insurance policy covered what happened, then the story loses a lot of punch.
This is what I found:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/30/police-blew-up-an-innocent-mans-house-search-an-armed-shoplifter-too-bad-court-rules/
"His expenses to rebuild the house and replace all its contents cost him nearly $400,000, he said. While insurance did cover structural damage initially, his son did not have renter’s insurance and so insurance did not cover replacement of the home’s contents, and he says he is still in debt today from loans he took out.
“This has ruined our lives,” he said.
Gallegos stressed that any large expenses Lech incurred are because he chose to do more than necessary, and chose to “repour the foundation that wasn’t damaged, and [build] a bigger better house where the old one stood.” Lech insisted starting from scratch was necessary."
Another article:
https://thecrimereport.org/2019/10/30/court-co-city-owes-nothing-for-house-police-destroyed/
"The city refused to compensate Lech’s family but offered $5,000 in temporary rental assistance and for the insurance deductible."
So let's sum up:
1. The house was insured. Insurance paid for the damage. But the owner built a bigger house than what was there before and thus incurred more costs than were covered by insurance. The city offered to cover the insurance deductible and temporary housing expenses, which the homeowner refused.
So this isn't about "gubberment bad!!!" but rather this is someone trying to cash in on an unfortunate event. Like if your 10 year old Hyundai gets hit by a drunk driver while parked in front of your house and you demand they replace it with a new Mercedes.
2. There was apparently a renter who did not have renter's insurance living there. This is not the fault of Greenwood Village.
OneGuy67
10-31-2019, 09:43
So let's sum up:
1. The house was insured. Insurance paid for the damage. But the owner built a bigger house than what was there before and thus incurred more costs than were covered by insurance. The city offered to cover the insurance deductible and temporary housing expenses, which the homeowner refused.
So this isn't about "gubberment bad!!!" but rather this is someone trying to cash in on an unfortunate event. Like if your 10 year old Hyundai gets hit by a drunk driver while parked in front of your house and you demand they replace it with a new Mercedes.
2. There was apparently a renter who did not have renter's insurance living there. This is not the fault of Greenwood Village.
Yup. I think it would be difficult to find a city who was willing to pay your insurance deductible AND pay for your housing for a period of time in a situation like this.
Here is the arrest affidavit for the suspect:
https://greenwoodvillage.com/DocumentCenter/View/13916/Affidavit-Seacat?bidId=
Here is the judicial ruling in case anyone wants to actually read it instead of relying on 9News' interpretation:
https://www.scribd.com/document/432849199/Leo-Lech-et-al-v-Chief-John-A-Jackson-et-al
spqrzilla
11-01-2019, 22:44
There is your lesson. Never believe 9News.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.