Insurance coverage unlikely for Pottsville home after Aug. 8 incident

Aug. 18—POTTSVILLE — Family members left to cope with the damage after police forced their way inside a city home last week have little chance that the government or insurance will pay for repairs.

The case involving John Joseph Liptok Sr. and the damage to 1803 W. Norwegian St. brought to light questions about what happens when law enforcement causes damage to a home in pursuit of a suspect.

As has been proven in many cases nationwide, they are typically protected from liability in carrying out their duties.

Police had confronted Liptok, 57, outside his home the morning of Aug. 8 after a warrant was issued for his arrest regarding his failure to appear for sentencing the day prior. Police went back to the home and Liptok exited the side kitchen door about 4:15 p.m. and began speaking to officers while holding what appeared to be a dark-colored grenade.

He then told officers, "You know what this is — if you come in my house, it's going to go off."

Shortly afterward, Liptok called the cellphone of an officer on-scene from his landline and said he was sending his son out, adding he had already pulled the pin on the grenade and was going to turn the gas on in his house.

The threats would lead to a large police presence over the next few hours, including the Pennsylvania State Police Special Emergency Response Team (SERT), dozens of officers, a sniper on a nearby roof and an armored vehicle. Police didn't know until they entered the home late that night that Liptok had apparently left soon after they had engaged with him that afternoon.

He was found the next morning about a mile away and was charged with four felonies. He remains in jail without bail awaiting an Aug. 28 hearing.

The next day, his stepson and wife complained about what happened to their home.

The next day, the smell of pepper spray on the second floor was still enough to irritate the eyes and nose within a few minutes. There were broken windows and doors, a suspended ceiling was collapsed and items in disarray in an upstairs room where photos of deceased loved ones were displayed.

"I'm relieved that nobody was hurt, but my home is destroyed," the stepson, Nicholas Liptok, said at the time.

Liptok Sr.'s wife, S. Christel Liptok, said she understood that police had a job to do, but that she didn't believe her home needed to be damaged so severely in the process, especially because she told police during the standoff that she didn't believe her husband was home.

She planned to contact her insurance agency but doubted they would cover such a claim.

She's likely correct, said John Malinchok, owner of John Malinchok Insurance Agency Inc., Frackville. He said damage incurred during such an incident is not covered under a person's homeowner's insurance policy.

Such policies cover damage caused by accident, and not by an intentional act.

What Liptok Sr. did forced police to do what was necessary to ensure the safety of nearby residents and other law enforcement officers.

"As the owner of the property, his intentional actions prompted the resulting damage, and that is not covered under a homeowner's policy," he said.

Malinchok said Christel Liptok may have alternatives. For example, if her husband is deemed to have been mentally incompetent at the time of the incident, his actions would not be considered intentional.

"That would be something that would have to be determined down the road," he said.

Or, she could sue her husband to collect wages, Social Security, pensions or disability coverage to recoup the cost of repairs.

Attorney Joseph Nahas, of Frackville, said because Liptok Sr. made the threat from outside his home, he believes it should be a covered claim.

"This is the typical insurance company trying to find a loophole to avoid paying a claim," he said. "It happens all the time."

Case in Denver

There have been extreme cases where a homeowner could not recoup losses. NPR reported how an armed shoplifting suspect in Colorado barricaded himself in a stranger's suburban Denver home in June 2015. In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors.

After an hours-long siege, the home was left with shredded walls and blown-out windows, according to the story written by Bobby Allyn.

But a federal appeals court in Denver ruled in October 2019 that the homeowner, who had no connection to the suspect, isn't entitled to be compensated, because the police were acting to preserve the safety of the public.

Lawyers for the homeowner argued that the police destruction was a violation of the Constitution's Takings Clause, which says private property cannot be taken for public use without "just compensation."

But the problem with that argument, the appeals court ruled, is that courts have long held that police cannot be on the hook for property damage caused in the process of trying to make an arrest, Allyn wrote.

Bad for everyone

In the Liptok case, Christel Liptok could not be reached for comment Friday as to what she's been told by her insurance carrier.

Nicholas Liptok had said the following day that his stepfather "just should have surrendered and none of this would have happened. I feel so bad about everybody in the neighborhood because we were all victims of this stuff."

Contact the writer: fandruscavage@republicanherald.com; 570-628-6013