Kat Von D Torched Her Own House
Last year Kat von D's house caught on fire. The same fire that killed her cat. Now, according to TMZ her insurance company says Kat was responsible for the fire and they want the money back they paid to her for the damages. Apparently it is almost $1M. I'm not sure Kat has that kind of money. You would think someone who had their own reality show and has their own successful company would have it, but I don't think she does. I think if she sold everything she has she could come up with it, but it's not like the money is rolling in for her right now. The fire started when Kat lit a bunch of candles all over the house. Next thing you know it burned down.
41 comments:
candles are so dangerous. she's lucky she didn't die in the fire. apparently her cat did, which is so sad.
people die all of the time from candle fires. they light a candle, fall asleep, etc.
That's one stupid looking house.
she's an idiot....when I had cats I never lit a candle that didn't have a guard on it....stupid stupid woman.
The point of the story is that Kat was responsible for the fire. She's not lucky, she's responsible for it. Some might think the wrong cat died.
Only if the fire was intentional would the insurance company want the payout back. And its unlikely they'll receive it b/c its a lack of thorough investigation on their end. The company shouldn't have paid out without fully investigating the the claim. Also stupidity isn't excluded on HO policies. She lacked reason when lighting those candles throughout the home, but did she intend for a fire to destroy the home? Doubtful. essay over :-)
Nice, Agent**It!
During the blackouts I've experienced, I always had cats. If you had to go to the bathroom, you blew all the candles out, took one to the bathroom and then when you went back out, you relit them all. Why, because you don't leave candles unattended, especially if you have kids or pets. Fucking idiot. More reason to dislike her.
Was she at fault for an accident or did she purposely burn down their house? I don't like this woman, but there us a slight difference.
I don't think the house is stupid looking. I think it's cute. Of course, I also adore the "storybook" house design.
If I was responsible for a fire that killed one of my animals, I would never, ever forgive myself.
The insurance company paid out, then decided it was her fault, and wants the money back? Insurance companies take AGES to pay out, you'd think they would have figured out who was at fault before they paid on the claim.
I like the house. But using a little common sense would tell you it's not a good idea to light candles "all over the house"...I never burn one in a room where I'm not present, and especially not with a cat around. I'm sure she didn't mean to burn her house and kill her cat, but she did it with her stupid.
the only thing I don't get about this story is when it happend I thought I had read she wasn't in the home at the time. So if she lit candles and took off to some out of state event. I hope the insurance company does get back every dime. I agree they were stupid to pay out so fast it was about 900k I read.
Then what is the basis of their lawsuit ? Won't the language in the lawsuit state that she did set her own house afire and then she will have to disprove it? I would like to better understand the lawsuit.
Texshan, I agree with you on both points, especially the second.
She looks like an alien...her and Rihanna both.
Yeah, thats a little fishy. And unless her policy had a "no candles" clause, i dont think it will hold.
She is stupid, but I agree that the insurance company is even more stupid for paying out if the investigation wasn't thorough/finished. that's their bad.
that house got burned down? it probably cost alot to build, then, they give her 1 million dollars because she carelessly lit candles and left them there, while having a cat that got killed because of her stupidity!?? weird.
My husband was a insurance adjuster specializing in property damage. He says if it was accidental the insurance company will pay. In other words, you're insured for stupidity. As an adjuster, the first thing he would look for is: Was anything missing? Jewelry, electronics, important papers, etc? That's proof that the fire was deliberately set. You remove what can't be replaced (or would be very expensive to do so). Of course, the fire department would know if an accelerant is used. But too many candles? Stupidity, not malice. Stupidy is covered. Husband also says the insurance company shouldn't have paid out so soon if there were questions. Was there a criminal investigation? Did the FD suspect arson? Not enough info here.
As for the house, I like it. It wouldn't work in Florida, but in the proper setting - the mountains, the forest, it would look great.
Kat Von D @thekatvond
Contrary 2 rumors-I did NOT burn my house down(I was on my booktour during the fire) and no, I did NOT kill my own cat.
I like the house too!
So wait, she wasn't home? And she left candles lit? Wow. I agree, you've got candles burning, you stay in the room where they are ESPECIALLY with animals. You have to pee? Put them out and relight. Only takes less than a second to have a candle fall.
Insurance agent chiming in here...I hate to say it, but the policy more than likely paid so quickly because of who she was. We have many high net worth clients; a few years ago, the wife of one of our clients (who is also one of our largest personal accounts) filed a claim against her inland marine policy for a stolen wedding set. Within the week, Chubb issued a check for $98k, without even receiving a police report. Two months later, she found the wedding set. Now, mysterious disappearance is covered, so had she simply "misplaced" the rings, the company still would have paid the loss. But, after she found the rings, she actually paid Chubb BACK the full $98k. They then sent her a ridiculous gift basket (we're talking Oscar swag status) as a thank you for her honesty. Not only did they have their personal policies with Chubb, but their commercial policies all over the world. When a carrier is collecting premium like that, they aren't going to hassle the client.
Something in the police report may have triggered Kat's insurance carrier to think differently about the cause of loss. A carrier has the right to change their mind, reopen a claim and investigate again, if they find something after the fact. And they have the right to be reimbursed...and WILL take you to court if you don't pay up.
/endbabbling :)
Looks like a house Bam would live in.
Thank you for all that info (babble, ha !). I never stop learning.
Thanks @SusanB and @Cornbread, I love hearing insider perspectives here!
Okay, I admit, I crazy love that house.
I think the house looks kinda cool. All Gothic and old-church like. Maybe it's because every time we move, it's to another suburb with another cookie-cutter floorplan.
So if she was on her book tour, perhaps she has a pet/house sitter that had the candles lit?
Regardless, I don't know that I see the insurance company recouping this. They might, but at the same time they should have been more thorough in the initial investigation.
She wasn't in town at the time. She had roommates. By saying Kat is responsible, they mean "as the homeowner".
Why all they Kat-hate? She is kind of annoying, but at least she's a talented artist, unlike some of the other idiots on TV!
Right, exactly.
enty wrote "Kat lit some candles" which more than implied that KAT lit the candles herself, which was misleading/false. :/
Really? Fire from candles.
What, is that FAUX fairyland castle she calls a house lined with hay and wicker?
@cornbread: thanks for the explanation, that's helpful!
@SusanB: thanks to you as well, though I have to comment -
"As an adjuster, the first thing he would look for is: Was anything missing? Jewelry, electronics, important papers, etc? That's proof that the fire was deliberately set"
how in the hell do you tell if something's missing when there was a fire? EVERYTHING is missing! ;)
@kraymond19: may have something to do with Kat being a famewhore. Famewhoring doesn't go over well on CDAN. Or possibly because of her stupendous taste in men. Take your pick.
Poor pussy cat :(
she should tattoo her burning house on her butt
@EmEyeKay... Okay... that I totally get! I've been on CDAN since the Timmy days & I have seen less hate for WAY more annoying (imo) people. But you are speaking clearly to me! xo
EmEyeKay...An insurance investigator will notice if you don't have to re-apply for birth certificates, SSA cards, deeds to property, etc. He will check whether you've opened a safe deposit box before the fire. (You'd e shocked at how many people think no one will find out they did--even though banks record EVERYTHING, and then some.)
And not everything burns to ashes in most fires. Everything is ruined, sure. But if the t.v., stereo, jewels, etc AREN'T in the home and fire-damaged, it's a good sign of arson. Only people who don't have a lot of experience with house fires think that everything 'burns up', so they THINK no one will notice they took all the valuables out.
(I'm not experienced with fire, thank god, I just have known a 40-year volunteer fireman my whole life, who has seen many arson fires and talks a lot about it.)
I forgot to add that yes, some arsonists let their animals die in the fire on purpose, to reduce suspicion.
Conversely, some arsonists think no one will notice that their pets were removed from the home beforehand.
I like the house!
Don't know about Kat being responsible, but I do wonder about the candles. Who leaves a house with candles unattended? I hear/read about this stuff all the time. I love candlelight, but I'm always with my candles.
Her house is kind of cute in that setting. Her body, on the other hand...
I have left big candles on many times, some by choice and some by accident. Yes, this makes me an idiot and I now have yet another reminder to blow them out before leaving. I guess you can add this to my list of *hopefully* former bad habits! :-(
She tweeted today saying she didnt do it, provable because she's on a book tour. Of course, she isn't the smartest tool in the shed. The book tour could have been in San Diego.
Someone posted about the Fake or Faux Castle. Although I don't know exactly where this property is I am pretty sure that this house was built most likely in the 20's or the 30's and probably sits up in the Hollywood Hills or Laurel Canyon. You must remember that a lot of Hollywood people have lived in that area since the early days of motion pictures and this house most likely was built by or for someone like that. That house probably has a lot of interesting history and is very unique. I think it's awesome.
I don't light candles anymore; I have a very bad habit of forgetting about them. I would only light one at a time, but I've gone to bed and even LEFT ON VACATION with a candle burning. Came home from the trip, found melted wax all over the table, wondered how in the world THAT happened and suddenly I could remember the whole thing about the candle with absolute clarity, when I didn't think of it even ONCE while on my trip. AND I lived in an apartment building so I was SO lucky. No more candles for me!
Post a Comment