Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Reader Rabbit

(2,748 posts)
Wed Jan 14, 2026, 09:45 AM Yesterday

Question: Insurance Companies vs ICE/DHS

ICE thugs are destroying a lot of property and causing a lot of physical injury wherever they go. Can insurance companies—auto, homeowners, renters, medical—go after them for damages/injuries caused? It's not as if those filing claims wouldn't have tons of evidence, given all the video. Are there any victims who have sicced their insurance companies on ICE? And if so, is there somewhere we can find out the results?

Insurance companies are pretty powerful in the larger political scheme. If they start suffering tons of loss due to ICE-related damage claims, I'm wondering if that might be another arrow in our quiver against these ICE-holes.

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Question: Insurance Companies vs ICE/DHS (Original Post) Reader Rabbit Yesterday OP
It depends DetroitLegalBeagle Yesterday #1
Good question Sanity Claws Yesterday #2
What they always do. multigraincracker Yesterday #3
Depends on what the policy covers. Check the exclusions. Ocelot II Yesterday #4
The murder last week Norbert Yesterday #5
Good point, smart angle. Why we should film everything when ICE is about. dutch777 Yesterday #6
This government is being ran like the mafia. If Emile Yesterday #7

DetroitLegalBeagle

(2,469 posts)
1. It depends
Wed Jan 14, 2026, 10:01 AM
Yesterday

If the damage was during the course recognized and lawful operations, then the property owners insurance is on the hook for it. Doesn't matter if the person was innocent or not, or not even directly involved with the situation. If its a legitimate operation, then it falls under public necessity. If the police were negligent, reckless, or otherwise acting outside the scope of a lawful police action, then they can be held liable for the damages. In practice though, it's a mixed bag on getting courts to side with the property owners or insurance company.

Sanity Claws

(22,343 posts)
2. Good question
Wed Jan 14, 2026, 10:02 AM
Yesterday

Whenever I see those damaged cars, I keep thinking of how much it is going to cost the victim to fix. Even with insurance for body damage, there is a deductible. So many people are living paycheck to paycheck and can't pay for the repairs even if insurance covers some of it.

Ocelot II

(129,267 posts)
4. Depends on what the policy covers. Check the exclusions.
Wed Jan 14, 2026, 10:22 AM
Yesterday

I looked at my car insurance policy and found these exclusions:

Coverage under this Part IV will not apply for loss:

5. to any vehicle caused by an intentional act committed by or at the direction of you, a relative, a rated resident, or the owner of a non-owned auto, even if the actual damage is different than that which was intended or expected;

7. due to destruction or confiscation by governmental or civil authorities of any vehicle because you, any relative, or any rated resident engaged in illegal activities;

11. to any vehicle caused directly or indirectly by: a. war (declared or undeclared) or civil war;

b. warlike action by any military force of any government, sovereign, or other authority using military personnel or agents .This includes any action taken to hinder or defend against an actual or expected attack; or

c. insurrection, rebellion, revolution, usurped power, or any action taken by a governmental authority to hinder or defend against any of these acts;

13. to any vehicle caused by, or reasonably expected to result from, a criminal act or omission of you, a relative, a rated resident, or the owner of a non-owned auto . This exclusion applies regardless of whether you, the relative, the rated resident, or the owner of the non-owned auto is actually charged with, or convicted of, a crime .For purposes of this exclusion, criminal acts or omissions do not include traffic violations


The insurer might try to deny coverage for the damage by claiming that you were doing something illegal, e.g., impeding an ICE action, (5, 7) or that the damage was caused by a "rebellion or insurrection" or "action taken by a governmental authority to hinder or defend against any of these acts."

If the insurer does agree to cover the damage, they could try to recover the reimbursement to you from the government (subrogation) but I'm not sure how successful that would be.

Emile

(40,769 posts)
7. This government is being ran like the mafia. If
Wed Jan 14, 2026, 11:03 AM
Yesterday

insurance companies go after the mafia, the godfather Trump will go after them.

All thanks to the Supreme Court giving our King unlimited powers.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Question: Insurance Comp...