Also why health insurance companies drop people when they get sick - they just couldn’t have expected it, and actually paying money to someone who needs is expensive.
5 Likes
“Hmm… and what did you call this mission?”
“The Aristocrats!”
8 Likes
I honestly thought this story was going to involve the truck owner trying to defend himself from a criminal charge of drug-trafficking. So, good news?
2 Likes
The language of the 5th is excruciatingly clear, I cannot understand how it can be worked around by ‘policy analysis’ hand-waving: "… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." What could be clearer than that?
8 Likes
That’s no longer legal.
Amazing that so many people still rail against Obamacare, though, isn’t it?
4 Likes
If I understand things correctly, at least part of the problem is that they filed the case the wrong way to argue a violation of constitutional rights. Without those claims, the law they sued under only left the policy argument to work with.
2 Likes
Is anyone else reminded of Gary Oldman’s character in The Professional where he plays a crooked DEA officer that gets away with murdering an entire family?
1 Like
not really. And I saw it friday night.
I’m so confused! Should we be happy because the government is protecting us from drug dealing terrorists using any means necessary? Or angry at Gov’ment overreach?
one commetator on the linked article opined that you should be happy that government is saving the taxpayers money.
Well they probably spent a shit load of money on all the drugs and guns and LEO’s running around shooting one another… So a costly court case wouldn’t help anyone.
From the article:
The record shows that the DEA task force members did not know Patty’s
name, were under the impression that his driver was the vehicle’s
rightful lessee, and third parties caused the vehicle damage.
So it looks like the DEA’s argument is that it is the dead DEA agent’s fault and the criminal’s fault and the owner should be suing the dead agent’s estate and the criminals?
Riots are excluded for a distinct reason as you’ve said, however, they aren’t the only commonly excluded category that would surprise people who’ve never filed a claim (and many small business owners are as unfamiliar with their policy exclusions as your average householder).
Whether or not this business loss was covered depends on the owner’s policy contract. My experience with commercial p & c coverage is limited, but it’s commonly more expensive than similar kinds and levels of coverage for private individuals, or non-commercial uses. It also commonly contains more exclusions than coverage for individuals (and their families, or personal property).
Some of the reasons why business coverage is less comprehensive are legit – businesses make heavy use of their property, and often use it in riskier settings. Some of the higher cost has little relationship with actuarial data, and is based on what the market will bear. (You can squeeze more cash out of a guy who can write it off as a business expense on his taxes.)
The upshot is: I seriously doubt this poor guy was made whole. In fact, his loss may have been what prompted his suit. It might explain their unfortunate decision against using a constitutional protections argument.
1 Like
There’s a notion in tort law about deep pockets–one sues the defendent with the most financial resources, not neccesarily the one with the most moral culpability. And governments have very deep pockets. Sovereign immunity protects the government from being the defendent of first resort. Sovereign Immunity is, in a sense, pierced by the Federal Tort Claims Act, but the lawsuit here argues that these claims do not fit the enumerated catagories: “assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution”, or are blocked by exception in the FTCA.
The question I have is “Who is the proper object of the lawsuit?”
1 Like
Yes, you’re probably right, if we could read the details it wouldn’t turn out to be the DEA. It’s likely that they were able to make some plausible argument that they weren’t responsible. That this use or subsequent destruction of his property was due to the actions of the informant/employee or the criminal enterprise – the Zetas.
But, damn. What stunning negligence. They have a budget the size of city or two, and they stiff a guy after his property is used and destroyed in an operation they O.Ked. More to the point, this seems to be S.O.P. for federal agencies. And the only people up in arms about this kind of stuff seem to be pitiful old cranks who fear fluoridation, and see Commies under every rock.
1 Like
Nothing to see here. Poor schmuck gets caught in a war between rival criminal organizations. Each gang is ‘the law’ in its own territory.
What would happen to the guy from a cross-border financial crimes perspective if the Zetas decided to cut him a check for the damages as a PR move and he tried to cash it?
1 Like
Isn’t the dismissal of the case a very clear “because fuck you, that’s why”?
2 Likes
With rare exceptions, you do not have an insurable interest in your employees. Thank goodness.
Sadly–it’s common practice…
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/an-employee-dies-and-the-company-collects-the-insurance/?_r=0
