General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuestion: 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 companiesauto, homeowners, renters, medicalgo 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.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,469 posts)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)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.
multigraincracker
(37,027 posts)1. Defend
2. Deny
2. delay.
Get a lawyer.
Ocelot II
(129,267 posts)I looked at my car insurance policy and found these exclusions:
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.
Norbert
(7,597 posts)Probably totaled her Honda Pilot and three other vehicles.
dutch777
(4,904 posts)Emile
(40,769 posts)insurance companies go after the mafia, the godfather Trump will go after them.
All thanks to the Supreme Court giving our King unlimited powers.