Do I have a claim? House burned down, no insurance.

[joyfulgirl]

What is the name of your state? mississippi

Hi,
I owned an unoccupied house on one of the poorest streets in my town. I bought it in 1996 for a ridiculously small price ($10,500) and remodeled the whole interior of the house over the next 4 years that I lived there. I bought another house, moved on and intermittently rented it or let various family members live there up until 1.5 years ago when I decided that renting just wasnt for me.

The call for the fire was placed at 11:00 am, and I was notified by a friend that he had heard from another friend that our house burned at approximately 11pm that night. I thought for sure that he was mistaken, but I jumped in my car to go see. To my utter shock, when I pulled up there was a fire truck and my house and the neighboring house were burned to the ground, still smoldering.

I got out of my car and said to the firemen on the scene, "this is my house." One of the firemen broke from the pack and said, "we were told that both of these houses were owned by X." X being the owner of the first house that caught fire. I said, "he told you that?" the fireman responded that a man who owns 4 rents houses on the same block told them that (not the first house's owner) and that he also told them that both houses were on the condemned list. I told him that wasn't true as my house was a million years away from the condemned list. Anyway, he told me that due to it being 100+ degrees outside and working on the assumption that both houses were condemned they decided to let them burn.

I was in such a state of shock and concern that no one was injured that I didn't ask many questions. They took my name, address, phone number and told me that there would be a fire report that I could pick up on the following Monday.

Flash forward to Monday, I go to pick up the fire report and there is no report for my house, only the first house with a 1 sentence mention of my house having caught fire from radiated heat. My name was nowhere on the report. The dimensions and value of my house were not added to the report - only info pertaining to the first house.

I asked the fire chief if it was being investigated as arson because the neighbor on the other side saw a man running from the back of the first house 15 minutes before he saw smoke. He believes the man was the son of the owner of the first house, he is not certain but he thinks it was him. He called 911, the fire dept. was on the scene in 2 minutes. He relayed the info about the man running to the firemen on the scene and they told him they would be back to investigate after it stopped smoldering. Anyway, I asked the chief if it was indeed being investigated as arson and he told me that unless someone saw him light the match, it could never be proved yada yada yada.

According to this neighbor and two others that I have talked to, my house was not on fire when the fire dept. arrived. I also am close, personal friends with a fireman who was on the scene, and he too has told me that my house did not catch fire until a few hours after the fire dept. arrived. The front page of the newspaper the next day said basically the same thing, that due to close proximity and high temperatures, they decided to contain the fires to the 2 houses and let them burn.

When I asked the chief if my house was one fire when they got there, he looked kind of squirrely and said that he was told that it was. I didn't correct him as I was trying to be as polite as possible.

Of course, I have no insurance on the house other than a liability rider (300,000) attached to my primary residence's insurance to cover my butt in case something happened or I got sued by somebody. I regretfully made the decision to cancel the insurance on Jan 31 of this year after carrying insurance on it for 10+ years - hard lesson learned to say the least.

My question is this: considering that they were acting on erroneous information that my house was condemned, do I have a case against the neighbor who provided the false information and the fire dept. for doing nothing to protect my house?

All of this is documented by neighbors and my local newspaper's cover story the next day with some very damning quotes from the asst. fire chief admitting that they let them burn due to the extreme heat (100+).

Am I right to believe that if my house had been on another street that it would have been saved? I have seen houses even closer together catch fire and be saved. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing a house in my city be so dessimated by fire - there literally is only a brick chimney left.


Sorry for the length, but I could parse it down anymore that that. Thank you in advance for any advice.

[joyfulgirl]

edited reply to a post that has been removed.

[seniorjudge]

Q: My question is this: considering that they were acting on erroneous information that my house was condemned, do I have a case against the neighbor who provided the false information and the fire dept. for doing nothing to protect my house?

A: No.



Q: Am I right to believe that if my house had been on another street that it would have been saved?

A: No.



Firefighters try to put out fires.

They don't care about the title or status of the whatever that is on fire.

They just want to kill the fire.

[joyfulgirl]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Firefighters try to put out fires.

They don't care about the title or status of the whatever that is on fire.

They just want to kill the fire.

Up until last weekend, I would have agreed with you..


This is an exact copy of the newspaper story with only names and addresses deleted for privacy reasons:

Headline: Firefighters allows contained blaze to burn two houses

Story:

A pair of neighboring unoccupied houses burned Friday as firefighters battled a heatwave as fierce as the blaze.

Houses at (addresses omitted) near Young St. were destroyed by fire as the flames spread from one residence to the other. The fire broke out late Friday morning.

The houses were in declining condition, officials said.

The fire was first reported to 911 as a house fire with someone possibly inside. Smoke and flames were visible when firemen arrived.

Assistant Fire Chief (name omitted) said firmen began an interior attack and did a thorough search of the residence. No one was found inside.

"It was so hot that we backed off and let them burn," said (name omitted). "There was too much fire in the attic and we couldn't get to it."

The owner of the properties is (name omitted).

The department remained at the scene through the afternoon to keep the fire contained as the old houses burned. Four pumper trucks and 13 men responded.

"We've sent two of the stations back and let them eat and cool down," (name omitted) said at 3pm.

The relentless heat wave quickly affected the firemen. The temperature was as high at 101 degress in (town name) on Friday, when temperatures were near or above record levels, according to the national weather service.

The police department helped provide water to the firemen, and a citizen brought sports drinks.

[xylene]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

They don't care about the title or status of the whatever that is on fire.

They just want to kill the fire.

No fire chief or brigade captain I know would risk his firefighters lives on an abandoned property that was already engulfed in flames.

The mission profile would most likely be 1)Recon and determine unoccupied, 2) fire containment and external suppression by hoses at range.

Structural preservation firefighting would be at best a tertiary concern.

[joyfulgirl]

thanks for your input. my house was not abandoned. i kept the yard up, and made repairs as needed. there were no broken windows, no leaky roof, nothing like that. the only thing it needed was an exterior paintjob. just because it was unoccupied doesn't mean it was abandoned.

[joyfulgirl]

thank you for your time everyone. i'll suck it up and hire a dozer to clean the property ASAP to limit my liability in case some kid goes to play in the rubble!

[Ozark_Sophist]

You might want to run it by a local attorney for a free consultation. I think the fire department has some explaining to do at least.

[FlyingRon]

If you can't afford to lose it, insure it.
An unoccupied older house is going to be real conservative in the interior attacks used against it.

Even if they fought the fire, it would probably be more than 10,500 worth of damage.

And before you ask, you won't win arguing that the fire started next door and as a result they should be responsible for damage to your house in the spread.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by xylene

No fire chief or brigade captain I know would risk his firefighters lives on an abandoned property that was already engulfed in flames.

The mission profile would most likely be 1)Recon and determine unoccupied, 2) fire containment and external suppression by hoses at range.

Structural preservation firefighting would be at best a tertiary concern.

Amen and amen.

[Ozark_Sophist]

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

If you can't afford to lose it, insure it.
An unoccupied older house is going to be real conservative in the interior attacks used against it.

Even if they fought the fire, it would probably be more than 10,500 worth of damage.

And before you ask, you won't win arguing that the fire started next door and as a result they should be responsible for damage to your house in the spread.

Originally Posted by xylene

No fire chief or brigade captain I know would risk his firefighters lives on an abandoned property that was already engulfed in flames.

The mission profile would most likely be 1)Recon and determine unoccupied, 2) fire containment and external suppression by hoses at range.

Structural preservation firefighting would be at best a tertiary concern.

OP's house was NOT ON FIRE WHEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ARRIVED. Had they maintained a water curtain on OP's house, it might not have even caught on fire. Instead they sat back and made sure it didn't spread to other houses in the neighborhood after another landowner wrongfully told them OP's house was condemned.

So the poor deserve less resources than the middle class. If this had been a middle class neighborhood, the fire department would have contained the fire to the first house.

[Ozark_Sophist]

Originally Posted by joyfulgirl

I was in such a state of shock and concern that no one was injured that I didn't ask many questions. They took my name, address, phone number and told me that there would be a fire report that I could pick up on the following Monday.

Flash forward to Monday, I go to pick up the fire report and there is no report for my house, only the first house with a 1 sentence mention of my house having caught fire from radiated heat. My name was nowhere on the report. The dimensions and value of my house were not added to the report - only info pertaining to the first house.

I bet the reason there is not more information about OP's house is the fire department knows it screwed up. The report should have detailed what steps the fire department took to prevent the spread of the fire from the original structure. Instead, the FD keeps the focus of the report on the house that was condemned.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by Ozark_Sophist

OP's house was NOT ON FIRE WHEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ARRIVED. Had they maintained a water curtain on OP's house, it might not have even caught on fire. Instead they sat back and made sure it didn't spread to other houses in the neighborhood after another landowner wrongfully told them OP's house was condemned.

So the poor deserve less resources than the middle class. If this had been a middle class neighborhood, the fire department would have contained the fire to the first house.

Without having been present at the fire, you can't make such a statement.

You may be 100% correct, but you do not know the facts.

[Ozark_Sophist]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Without having been present at the fire, you can't make such a statement.

You may be 100% correct, but you do not know the facts.

Without having read the OP's posts, you are ASSuming alot.

From the first post

According to this neighbor and two others that I have talked to, my house was not on fire when the fire dept. arrived. I also am close, personal friends with a fireman who was on the scene, and he too has told me that my house did not catch fire until a few hours after the fire dept. arrived. The front page of the newspaper the next day said basically the same thing, that due to close proximity and high temperatures, they decided to contain the fires to the 2 houses and let them burn.

UNTIL A FEW HOURS AFTER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ARRIVED.

I made the statements based on the facts presented by the OP. On what did you base your statements.

[xylene]

Originally Posted by Ozark_Sophist

OP's house was NOT ON FIRE WHEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ARRIVED.

The OP might suspect that, but that has not been conclusively established in any facts presented...

The OP could consider hiring an independent fire investigator.

I stand by my statement that firefighters will not risk life and limb to wage a structure preserving mission (ie internal firefighting) on an abandoned (ie empty and unoccupied) building.

That said, I am not aware of any routine fire procedure of willingly allowing a residential house fire to spread to adjoining structures in all but dire conditions (wildfire / disaster scenarios).

Establishing proof of any of faults or failures where liability may attach is going to take resources in investigation and litigation, and unless this property had substantially appreciated the likelihood of any net recovery may not be favorable.