What I haven't heard in all this with the guy's house burning

[EC]

down was, that the law is a community hazard...The neighbor who did have protection wouldn't have had to now deal with the damage if the fire department hadn't allowed the fire to spread in the first place...


Maybe if counties insist on this kind of system they should say that if you don't pay and you have a fire that presents a danger to surroundings, they will put out the fire, but you'd be on the hook for expenses, fines and the cost of the fee.


And how does this guy even get a settlement from his insurance, since he had no fire protection? Isn't that negligence?

[napi21]

1. That's about what I've posted on several threads here tonight.

Do you job but boy is it going to cost that homeowner! If that guy was correct, it appears someone has appointed or elected a fire chief who is a real AH!

[TexasObserver]

2. Home insurance typically pays, in spite of homeowner negligence.

Fraud (arson) they don't pay, but when the house burns down, it's USUALLY the homeowner's negligence (or someone in their family or an invitee to their property).

If this guy has home insurance, he will likely be paid for his loss, unless his payment of the $75 annual fire department fee was specifically mentioned and required as part of his insurance policy. Interestingly, that would allow his insurer to step into his shoes and assert a claim against the city for failing to put the fire out. While you might think such a lawsuit is hopeless, who has more money to spend on such a case - a large, national insurer or a small city with a tight budget?

Insurance companies have a vested interest in this matter, because it exposes them to claims far in excess of their losses otherwise. It is in their interest to attack such practices and make them costly for the small jurisdictions to employ. It also red flags the problem for insurers, who will now look more closely for such municipal practices when writing home insurance.

[aquart]

4. You're right. Letting that house burn could have destroyed the neighborhood.

I assume they were also doing nothing to prevent fire spread?

[TexasObserver]

6. The fire did spread, and they put it out for the houses that subscribed.

How do you think the neighbors felt, watching their neighbor's house burn? They actually tried to help put the fire out. Everyone knows that a burned out house in a block affects all home values in the house.

This decision by the city was stupid as well as being immoral.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. When I ived with a fire protection system like this, both my insurance and my mortgage required ....

.... to subscribe and stay current.

Curiously, the mortgage company would not pay of out of the escrow.

ETA: When I moved from there to an area that had "normal" fire service (some paid and some volunteer), my insurance went down on a more expensive house.

[TexasObserver]

7. One would think mortgage companies would be on top of it.

You'd think they would make it part of the package for the home note, so they are always covered.

The failure of the homeowner to pay the $75 could be an act of default under the mortgage and under his homeowner's policy.

Talk about penny wise and pound foolish. Whether by accident or on purpose, this was a major screw up by the homeowner, but it should never come to fire trucks refusing to fight a fire. That's Republican/Libertarian thinking.

[tnlefty]

9. My homeowner's policy doesn't require that we pay the

subscription fee, but because we do we receive a slight break on the rate.

[SoCalDem]

10. Perhaps he owned his home outright. Without a mortgage there would have been no one

"looking over his shoulder". The man even said in the interview, that his son had had a fire the year before, so it should have been uppermost in his own mind.

If a home is owned outright, many people let their coverage lapse..especially if they are having financial difficulties:(

My husband said that the foundation left behind looked like it had been a mobile home, so maybe in the homeowner's mind, it was a gamble we was willing to take:(

In reality, mobiles burn incredibly fast, and if I lived in one, I would make damned sure, I would have all the fire protection I could get:scared: In my town, we had a person die in a mobile fire last year ..It burned completely in a matter of minutes:(

[Stinky The Clown]

12. "That's Republican/Libertarian thinking"

Indeed it is. I can just imagine the Calvinistic certitude of telling that guy he was on his own.

[KittyWampus]

13. interesting information. Thanks.

[HughMoran]

3. Some sensible arguments there

Oh, is the word sensible verboten now? lol

Good questions.

[aquart]

8. I hope the neighbor who paid sues their asses off.

They did NOT protect his house.

[PoliticAverse]

11. From a followup article...

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/southeast/2010/10/05/113824.ht

"The family has coverage with Farm Bureau Insurance through local agent, Josh Simmons, who raced to the scene of the fire as soon as he learned about it. Simmons says the insurance company would not refuse or reduce payouts on the fire loss just because the fee has not been paid."

Thank goodness he sent in the insurance premium check on time.