OT: City Damages My Sewer Line - Who Pays???

[OneFinger]

This is way off-topic but I need some sound advice.

 

I'm in my SLC home for a couple of weeks and the water line breaks. It breaks between the water meter and the street so it's the responsibility of the city. (A break between the meter and my home would be my responsibility.)

 

So, the city comes out and repairs their problem. However, after their repairs I notice my drains are running slow. Today, the floor drains in the basement are backing up and sewer is coming in the basement.

 

Call a plumber to figure out what's wrong. Call the city to see if this is related to their water repairs. Only get voice mail and leave a message. Plumber shows up and drops a camera in the sewer line to diagnose the problem. City shows up while the plumber is there and witnesses the camera video.

 

Video proves the city damaged my sewer line while repairing the water line. City says they will repair the problem tomorrow at no cost to me.

 

The plumber has now charged me $300+ to diagnose the problem. I don't disagree with their response or charges. But, I don't feel I should have to pay for a problem caused by the city.

 

Bottom Line: Should I now expect the city to cover the cost of diagnostics by my plumber? If the city refuses to reimburse me, can I take them to Small Claims Court?

[bigvalboy]

Should I now expect the city to cover the cost of diagnostics by my plumber? If the city refuses to reimburse me, can I take them to Small Claims Court?

 

Good luck with that....Not a lawyer, but if I understand your post, my first reaction is that I am not sure you gave the city sufficient time to respond. Had the city refused to respond or taken several days, then perhaps you would have a case, but my inclination is that they did respond in a fairly timely manner, it is just that you beat them to it, and called the plumber before they had a chance to get out to your property.

 

Now in LA, litigation with the city is very tricky. I have had to deal with them on some very complicated issues, and they have blatantly lied and routinely failed to do what they had promised. In one case a judge actually said that I was right and the city was at fault, however he still dismissed the case, on the grounds that my lawyer had filed the paper work incorrectly. A disgusting travesty. Don't know how it is where you are.

[justaguy]

BVB's response is pretty much my experience here in Northern Virginia. I never took my problem to court on the advice of a lawyer I know who deals with the city.

[+ sf westcoaster]

I am not in the legal field, but my gut tells me that since you called the plumber you are on the hook for the $300. Also, the hassle of trying to get the 300 from the city would not, in my opinion, be worth the time and effort.

[+ Travis69]

Is this an example of the phrase "You can't fight City Hall"????????

[Electra 225]

In common law, you are responsible for the $300.00 since you called the plumber and he/she did the work (house call, video, etc.). Even if you were to successfully argue proximate cause in a small claims court cause of action, the city is, more than likely, indemnified from such claims through state statutory law. Besides, the cost of bringing a cause of action, even in small claims court, will cost you more than $300.00 by the time you figure your filing fees and costs, your time, and, if you hire one, an attorney's fees and costs (all of which are probably not recoverable). You may recoup some of your money by filing a claim with your casualty insurance company for the plumber's charges as well as any other reasonable and demonstratable costs for clean-up and remediation as well as damage to your property (depending upon your coverage, deductible, etc.).

[+ Archer]

OneFinger,

 

Have you tried asking the city to reimburse you the $300? It doesn't cost anything to ask and they might pay.

[OneFinger]

OneFinger,

 

Have you tried asking the city to reimburse you the $300? It doesn't cost anything to ask and they might pay.

 

Well, the city came out and made the repairs. They talked directly to my plumber and told him to send them the bill and they'd pay it. I didn't even have to ask them. The plumber also told me he'd come back after their repairs and do another camera scan to make sure the repairs were done correctly.

 

Now, for the bad news. The city did their repair but said that my sewer line didn't appear to be in good shape. And, the second camera scan confirmed I have a serious problem. Home was built in 1967 and they used a 4" clay sewer pipe. I think I'm the only home in the neighborhood that hasn't had to replace the sewer line.

 

Camera showed lots of breaks in the pipe, rocks coming up through the bottom, and I only have about 1" of very uneven flow in the 4" pipe. So, it's a new sewer line for me on Monday.

 

But, I am impressed with the way the city handled the issue. They agreed the problem was theirs, took care of the diagnostic bill, and warned me of potential problem. I'm going to be little lighter in the wallet but I won't have to worry about the sewer line for the rest of my life.