Truckee Fire rejects claim for damages
At their meeting Tuesday night, the Truckee Fire Protection District board of directors rejected a claim filed by Katherine M. Anglin for damages caused by June’s Martis Fire.
The fire burned more than 14,000 acres over a two-week period and required, at its peak intensity, more than 3,200 personnel to battle the blaze.
Anglin filed a claim with the district’s board for damages including “irreplaceable personal possessions, vehicles, habitable structures and loss of lease income.”
The claim alleges that the damages suffered by Anglin resulted from the failure of employees from the district and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to meet fire standards that require a known fire to be “double-checked and triple-checked E to assure it [does] not reignite.”
“Said employees wrongfully failed to do so,” the suit states.
Anglin has also filed a claim against CDF, but the state has not yet made a decision on that claim.
Robert Cohune, a Truckee attorney, is representing Anglin, who lived on property that was destroyed by the fire.
“We had [several] options: to ignore it, and within 45 days it would be the same as rejecting it, allow it, allow it with conditions, or reject it without conditions. We choose to reject it without conditions,” said Fire Chief Mike Terwilliger on Wednesday.
Terwilliger said the district has turned the matter over to their legal counsel, Brent Collinson, who said the plaintiffs have six months to decide if they are going to pursue civil litigation.
Terwilliger defended both his district and CDF, the lead agency on the fire.
“I’m not too worried about it. There is no validity to this claim. It’s the classic deep pocket approach. They look at these agencies and see deep pockets.”
Anglin’s attorney was unavailable for comment on Wednesday afternoon.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Lake Tahoe, Truckee, and beyond make the Sierra Sun's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User
In the early 1900s, few people would have accused the Southern Pacific Corporation of acting in the public interest, much less of working to preserve the natural environment. The much more popular view was that…