You must meet all 3 subsections (see that they are joined by "and") to use deadly force in protection of property. (1) and (2) are easily satisfied but the really questionable part is usually (3). Did he "reasonably believe" that there was no other way to recover it? Does having insurance mean that you can 'recover' it? If the person was armed then you'd have a case because (3)(B) would definitely apply.§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
I'd be interested to see was Charles thinks on that, but I'd have a hard time shooting someone over property unless it was like some irreplacable family heirloom or something like that.