Connecticut City Faces Lawsuit in Fatal Christmas Day Fire

May 7, 2012

  • May 7, 2012 at 2:49 pm
    F says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is all that is terrible about our business. First of all, the death of the innocent people involved is a tragedy. Secondly, this guy Matt Badger sounds like your typical blame shifter. There has to be a line drawn on how far one can subrogate. I believe the blame is squarely on Badger’s ex wife’s idiot boyfriend for improperly discarding fireplace ashes. There’s a legitimate proerty claim here and the insurance company (whether it’s Ms. Badger’s HO or Michael Borcina’s CGL) should cover that but beyond that these adults need to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions and quit trying to blame others for this unfortunate accident.

  • May 8, 2012 at 9:48 am
    Nan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Most states don’t regulate single family, owner occupied homes the way they do “rental” property. If you want to risk your own life that’s fine but if you are collecting rent, you can’t risk the tenant’s life. Imagine, a contractor not being truthful about his business to save money.. Was there an occupancy permit? How about investing in a battery operated smoke detector until the hard wires were in place? Personal responsibility is needed in the USA… these folks made serious mistakes but the city is not to blame for individual liberties and personal stupidity.

    • May 13, 2012 at 12:30 am
      roadwarrior says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Connecticut is not “most states.” If local ordinances require a C.O. and one was issued for this dwelling, in spite of the fact the inspector knew or should have known that mandated fire alarms were not installed, then the town is liable. This is due to the non-feasance of its employee.

      I have seen the plaintiff on local TV. He is a bitter individual who lost his wife to the contractor. Gee, that sounds like another area claim, however the widow and her contractor were convicted of murder. This claimant is looking to assuage his wounded pride with money. He has suffered a loss, and there is probably great pyschological trauma. No amount of money can compensate this type of loss.

      Since he was not yet divorced and since the maternal grandparents also died in the fire, guess who the recipient of the minors’ estates are?

      If the allegations are true, it would behoove the public entity insuror to make the best settlement they can and/or implead the boyfriend, as an individual and his company, as well as the wife. Shift the liability.

  • May 27, 2012 at 10:38 pm
    B says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Still watching this devastating story. No one can bring back the angels and grandparents, although I think everyone wishes they could. No doubt the contractor is directly responsible and he must feel horrible and live with his act/acts forever, as no doubt the mom does as she wakes each morning. The dad (and mom) have endured a blow that no one should ever have to endure. I can only imagine the emotions they must feel, and I mourn and pray for them as well as their family.

    The legal responsibiity….the contractor’s insurance company outright, and quite frankly I think the city most likely has some liability too, since it looks like some negligence or oversight occurred. It is up to the lawyers to pull this apart, and no doubt the city will fight tooth and nail. However, cities have permits and procedures in place for the very reason of protecting people, particularly children from negligent contractors. They have hired people to do this very job; therefore, there is accountability or liability. Obviously, no one did anything intentionally, but it seems that if the city had checked more thoroughly into the situation which appeared to have had many questionables, the tragedy may not have happened.

    Disturbingly pushing that thought along,the city knocking the house down the next day???? Most if not all evidence of responsibily or negligence was demolished or destroyed almost immediately after something so horrific!!!! This does not rest well. As the world was stunned on Christmas morning, the site was dismantled before anyone could think. I understand the reason given was to protect possible onlookers from the remains, but there are other ways the city could have sheltered the spot until at least people could have begun to understand what happened.

    Whatever the reason/reasons for immediately destroying the site, enough facts seem to remain that the city most likely has some legal responsibilty in this tragedy, as does the contractor,and his insurance company. The mother has already lost all she can.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*