I thought they said "driving an MRAP through your house is not a taking of property under eminent domain".
If that's their finding, and if ED was the only cause of action claimed by plaintiffs' attorney, I guess that's that.
I might agree that ED doesn't fit the facts well, but common tort law should fit, I would think. I mean, they blew many big holes in the walls and drove a MRAP through the house, if that's not an intentional tort, what is?
“It’s a miracle insurance covered any of it in the first place,” Maxam said. “Insurance is for fires, floods. There’s no ‘police blew up my house’ insurance.”
I thought they said "driving an MRAP through your house is not a taking of property under eminent domain".
ReplyDeleteIf that's their finding, and if ED was the only cause of action claimed by plaintiffs' attorney, I guess that's that.
I might agree that ED doesn't fit the facts well, but common tort law should fit, I would think. I mean, they blew many big holes in the walls and drove a MRAP through the house, if that's not an intentional tort, what is?
“It’s a miracle insurance covered any of it in the first place,” Maxam said. “Insurance is for fires, floods. There’s no ‘police blew up my house’ insurance.”
ReplyDeleteHey, maybe the NRA could offer some.