[jamesrbarnhill]

I own a business and rent a space in a shopping center. The store next door had a leak in there space caused by an ice maker. The owner of that store left me a voice mail (I have it recorded) stating that his ice maker broke and flooded both stores. In his VM he stated that he would take care of getting the water damaged fixed and the standing water removed. 4 hours later he still had not called anyone to mitigate the problem so we called in a water restoration company to remove the water. The bill was $800 but now he will not pay saying that he was not negligent.

If I go to small claims can I sue him because he said he was going to take care of it but not is backing out of his deal? Is this a verbal agreement? I thought I had reasonable assurance that he would pay and that is why I called in a company to fix the water damage.

[ScottGem]

The voice mail would reason not to wait, but it will depend on whether the court agrees.

Didn't you have insurance?

[jamesrbarnhill]

Yes I do have insurance however I was hesitant to claim this on my own policy (thinking it would go up) until he said he was not paying. His insurance company said he was not negligent for damages because it was something that broke from the ice maker beyond his control.

I have filed with small claims court seeking reimbursement of my deductable of $500.00.

I am hoping that “Reasonable Assurance” will play into this and also contract law for verbal contracts.

Thanks..
Jim

[JudyKayTee]

Yes I do have insurance however I was hesitant to claim this on my own policy (thinking it would go up) until he said he was not paying. His insurance company said he was not negligent for damages because it was something that broke from the ice maker beyond his control.

I have filed with small claims court seeking reimbursement of my deductable of $500.00.

I am hoping that “Reasonable Assurance” will play into this and also contract law for verbal contracts.

Thanks..
Jim

I think the Court is also going to have to look at what is reasonable. If a tenant calls me, for example, with backed up plumbing, I say I'll take care of it, I call my plumber and it takes him 4 hours to get there does the tenant have the right to call in his own plumber and expect me to pay for it?

I don't know if you acted in a reasonable manner or not and the Court will make the decision.

[asking]

If a tenant calls me, for example, with backed up plumbing, I say I'll take care of it, I call my plumber and it takes him 4 hours to get there does the tenant have the right to call in his own plumber and expect me to pay for it

I had exactly this happen. What is the answer?

[Fr_Chuck]

Liable, hard to say, this is not a "contract" since there that is a offer and acceptance.

Does his remark make him him liable to pay the clean up, perhaps.

But often certain business insurance will not pay for damage caused by machinary that breaks down, ** there are special insurance you can get for that, but not standard business coverage.

I believe it wll cause you to win, so you have little to lose

[ScottGem]

First you should sue for the total cost. If you win, you can reimburse your insurance company. If his carrier is refusing to pay it may be because of his coverage. It should not matter to them whether he was in control or not. What the insurer will then do is file a claim against the ice maker mfg. If he is refuses to pay, you might name the ice maker mfg as a co-defendent in your suit.

As Judy and I said, acting after only 4 hours may not have been reasonable on your part. It would depend on whether the leak occurred during business hours and interferred with your business.

[JudyKayTee]

I had exactly this happen. What is the answer?

When it happened to me the plumber I called (plumber #1) called me to say that plumber # 2 was also there and what should he do? I then called the tenant, my plumber was kind and did not charge me, I paid for plumber # 2. It was a really good tenant, she had 2 small children, she panicked, she apologized (in fact, she was pretty embarrassed) and that was the end of it. If it had gone to a hearing, I don't think she gave me sufficient time to get a plumber there but I'll never know...

I think both tenant and landlord have to be reasonable. My leases at the time contained language about plumbing repairs and tenant fault (because my tenants kept flushing down sanitary supplies - and I've posted that before as it impacted a septic system) but in this case plumber #2 was rather vague about the cause so I paid it, kept a good tenant.

[ScottGem]

As I pointed out, since this is a commercial property, that comes into play. For example, if the problem occurred while the shop was closed, it is reasonable for the OP to expect the damages to be fixed by store opening. If not, the OP could then add loss of business estimates to his suit.