Liability insurance, frozen pipes in a hot tub

[jaylectricity]

My insurance company paid out $1500. Not sure if that was in conjunction with the GC's insurance or if it was a standalone payment.

 

[Sierrasparky]

My insurance company paid out $1500. Not sure if that was in conjunction with the GC's insurance or if it was a standalone payment.

I guess that will leave a mark .
Sorry to hear that you got stuck with it.

 

[jaylectricity]

One claim in 12 years ain't too bad. Here's to at least another decade before the next one. At least my money was put to use. Now we'll see what happens when I get the bill for the upcoming year in April.

 

[petersonra]

One of the reasons you pay for insurance is so the insurance companies can get together and decide who is liable and it is not your problem to make that determination.

 

[kwired]

Is $1500 claim on a policy that is probably good for at least $300,000 maybe even up to one or two million really that big of a deal? Especially if it is the only claim over a period of several years.

Though I haven't used my insurance for claims before (at least the liability portion) the premium I do pay is based off estimates and the policy is audited annually, and can change based on how much and what kind of work was done. The audit is done by a third party - don't know if they have any claim information they deal with or not, but no questions have ever been asked that deals with potential claims from me.

 

[mtfallsmikey]

To me, it's the HO's fault.

 

[petersonra]

To me, it's the HO's fault.

The insurance companies have a very good feel for who the courts are going to decide is responsible and for small claims like this they just settle it among themselves most of the time. It is much more cost effective for everyone involved to work out a voluntary settlement between the parties involved.

I do not think you will find a court in the USA that would decide the HO is responsible. Once a contractor touches something, he pretty much owns it and the liability that goes along with it. If he leaves it in a condition where it is likely to be damaged that is on him because he is the expert on such things and not the HO. Part of what the HO is buying by hiring someone to do this kind of work is the expertise that goes with it.

 

[kwired]

The insurance companies have a very good feel for who the courts are going to decide is responsible and for small claims like this they just settle it among themselves most of the time. It is much more cost effective for everyone involved to work out a voluntary settlement between the parties involved.

I do not think you will find a court in the USA that would decide the HO is responsible. Once a contractor touches something, he pretty much owns it and the liability that goes along with it. If he leaves it in a condition where it is likely to be damaged that is on him because he is the expert on such things and not the HO. Part of what the HO is buying by hiring someone to do this kind of work is the expertise that goes with it.

I can agree that is how it would go most times, I don't agree it is necessarily right. Part of the problem today is when something goes wrong it always is someone else's fault. It would be nice for the contractor to tell the owner they may be turning off the supply to the hot tub. That does not automatically make them experts on the hot tub, some may be somewhat complicated to restart and that should IMO be the problem of the owner to restart it if it doesn't automatically restart when power it resumed.

Another example:

At a small community hospital a few years back they got new x-ray equipment and later on a CT scanner. My job was to provide adequate supply to such equipment. The equipment providers gave some specifications on conductor sizes based on length of run. Outside of that I am far from an expert on this equipment but consider myself an expert at getting a supply circuit to it. Where does my liability end on that job? I did not do anything with their equipment except land supply conductors where it designated they be connected. I did not even energize their equipment, I did verify voltage at local disconnect and told the equipment people it was good to that point. Making it work was not my problem.

 

[petersonra]

Look at it this way.

When you buy a product, unless it is specifically stated otherwise, there is what is called a warranty of merchantability. it basically means that you are selling them a product that would be in line with what an ordinary buyer of such a product would expect.

There is a similar concept when you sell a service. IMO, an ordinary buyer has a reasonable right to expect that the service performed won't make things worse.

 

[electrofelon]

So last winter one of my GC customers was adding a deck to a house......

You and the GC's first winter in the northeast??

 

[Electric-Light]

I don't feel like it's gonna be 100/0 thing just like many car accidents.

You're turning left. You have a green arrow.
A car turns right on red and you two collide.

You may argue that you had the green arrow and he turned in your path on red negligently.

He will argue that he saw you turning left, but turned right anyways assuming that you would not make an improper wide turn and he exercised his due diligence in observing for vehicles with right-of-way which you do not have, because you made a turn into a lane you're not supposed to turn into.

If one of you abstained from doing the described action above, you two wouldn't have collided.

Realistically, it's not going to go to a jury trial unless someone died or gets seriously hurt. Insurance companies will likely ration out fault to both of you. Carriers would view it as both of you contributed to the loss. To you for making an improper turn and to him for less than adequately checking his surroundings before turning right on red.

If you involve attorneys, the portion of pie each of you are responsible for can change, but without doubt, the size of the pie will grow dramatically to support attorneys' fees.

 

[kwired]

Look at it this way.

When you buy a product, unless it is specifically stated otherwise, there is what is called a warranty of merchantability. it basically means that you are selling them a product that would be in line with what an ordinary buyer of such a product would expect.

There is a similar concept when you sell a service. IMO, an ordinary buyer has a reasonable right to expect that the service performed won't make things worse.

I know this is a little different but still some of the same issues - say OP was changing service equipment or other activity not specifically involving the hot tub or it's local disconnecting means yet ultimately does interrupt power to the hot tub. Why is it OP's problem to make certain the hot tub starts up again when power is restored, he may not even know there is a hot tub in some instances.