How is burning a house full of explosives a safe way to eliminate a threat?
Some explosives are very sensitive to movement/friction so moving them is hazardous to say the least. At the same time, they won’t explode if burned.
C-4 is sometimes used as a fuel by soldiers in the field to heat food.
But to echo Miller’s point, the value of a house that has been saturated with dangerous and unstable explosives is likely to be zero. If so, the authorities destroyed a worthless property and thus should owe nothing in compensation.
Think of it this way: If the sheriff had not destroyed the home, the homeowner would have had to pay the cost of abating the hazards in the house him- or herself, and might well have ended up having to destroy it anyway.
I just looked at a sample homeowner’s policy. Point in fact is this would not be the type of policy that would cover a rental. As a rental, it would be covered under what is called an OLT or Owner’s Landlord’s and Tenant’s policy, but somethings are similar between these two type of policy forms. In particular the exclusions would be pretty much the same.
Anyway I found this in the sample HO policy under exclusions
Looks like the insurance Co is off the hook.
ETA I have a good friend IRL that does insurance law, I will kick it to them and see if they care to comment
Just don’t try to stomp on it to put out the flame when you’re done. 
To quote from two posts directly above yours:
But if they were worried that the house wasn’t safe, if they were unable to explore all of it due to possible booby traps, how would they possibly know the extent of just what he had stored in there? Seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
Answer: They couldn’t know for sure. But sending a human being into a building that is highly cluttered and laced with TATP is basically asking someone to go tap-dance in a minefield. Only more dangerous. You don’t send your bomb squad guys on suicide missions if there’s any viable alternative.
Almost all high explosives will burn very nicely if set alight and left uncontained. Even high explosives in glass or plasit containers will likely not make big bang when burned. Burned, most high explosives produce gasses and ashes that are not too hard to handle, and are substantially less dangerous than the original explosive!
The house was fenced off, the neighbors evacuated, and traffic on the nearby roads stopped. It’s not like the authorities said “Whelp - I don’t fell like doing my job today - someone toss a match in there.” They went about this in a very controlled fashion, with advice from all appropriate subject-matter experts.
Essentially the home was condemned by the government. As noted above, insurance does not cover condemnation by government decree. The homeowner should have taken better care of who they rent to.
The Government seized the property, the Government should pay for it.
The homeowner was not a criminal.
Ditto.
There was the story a few years back where the tenant was making meth on the rented property. The landlord was required to do a hasmat clean up including tearing down the house. The county or the feds in that case did not pay for any of the cleanup, it was all on the landlord, as it should have been.
Just because a landlord makes a mistake the taxpayers should not have to foot the bill. He was lucky lhe was not billed for the fire departments time.
The government did not seize the proberty. They eliminated a hazard to the public. The homeowner still owners and has posesion of the lproperty now that it is safe.
They took control of the house and destroyed it. It was done for the benefit of the community and with that authority goes the financial responsibility.
I got an answer back from my friend Here is what they said:
… to bill the homeowner for the very dangerous situation they allowed to develop on their property? Couldn’t agree with you more. 
But yeah, you own the property, you are responsible for who you rent to. Nobody twisted the owner’s arm and made them rent to the bomb-maker.
An airtight fence? Because it’s “the release of the known toxic chemicals in a house fire, plus the potential unknown toxic chemicals from the un-explored bomb lab, into the air” that concerns me, not “someone might get too close.”
Well, that’s why they evacuated the area and waited for the wind conditions to be appropriate to do the burn without the stuff blowing where they didn’t want it to be. Once the stuff blows away far enough, it gets too thinned out to be a danger.
And, in fact, if you watch all the videos out there on this subject, there’s one where that exact answer was given during a press conference prior to the burning.
This is all academic becuase we don’t have the actual policy to dissect, but homeowner’s policies are typically “named peril” policies. Meaning, if X, Y or Z results in a loss, you’ve got coverage. Otherwise, if one of the described things doesn’t happen, you’re SOL.
Burning the house down rendered it uninhabitable, yes, but that was an intentional act and/or government act and is therefore an excluded loss under any insurance policy I’ve ever been through. Besides, this didn’t happen in a vacuum. the reason for the action, the proximate cause of the loss, is the tenant’s contamination of the premises.
I just read my company’s California Rental Dwelling Policy (landlord’s policy covering the dwelling). Under “Losses not covered” there are about 15 little paragraphs categorizing different scenarios that bar coverage. The shortest one reads simply, “contamination.” And if we can agree that the house was rendered uninhabitable due to “contamination” then the “Loss of Rents” clause won’t kick in because the underlying cause was not a covered loss. Homeowner can expect a big “tough titty” from his insurance company, but that doesn’t mean the tenant is not ultimately liable for the government’s expenses in remediating the site, as well as for lost rents and the cash value of property damage suffered by the owner. The tenant did the deed, the tenant owes.
You are selling HO-1s and HO-2? Christ I didn’t think anybody did that once HO-3’s came along.
Usually when someone says homeowner’s insurance they are talking an HO-3 policy.
(bolding mine) All risk of physical loss except for exclusions. From the New York State Insurance Department, here.
But as you say it is all moot, but not for the reason you gave, but rather the policy that covers the house would not be a homeowners because the house was not owner occupied. It would be an OLT policy which is a separate policy form.
And your law degree is from? I quoted an actual attorney that practices insurance law in California.
As my friend said, it would depend on the exact wording in the policy that was covering the property. As I recall OLT policies do not have as standard a wording as fire or homeowner’s policies. bottom line is this could keep a platoon of lawyers busy for quite a while.